COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries controls
Date: 2018-05-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: authorised catch, by-catch, catch by species, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing vessel, quantity of fish landed, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.5.2018  SWD(2018) 280 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008,  and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries controls {COM(2018) 368 final} - {SEC(2018) 267 final} - {SWD(2018) 279 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................... IV 

ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... V 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ..................................... 1 

1.1.  The Common Fisheries Policy .......................................................................... 2 
1.2.  The Fisheries Control System ........................................................................... 3 
1.2.1. The Control Regulation ................................................................................ 4 
1.2.2. EFCA Founding Regulation ......................................................................... 4 
1.2.3. The IUU Regulation ..................................................................................... 5 
1.2.4. Other fisheries legislative acts with control provisions ................................ 5 

1.3.  Other relevant fisheries policy elements: EMFF and CMO .............................. 5 
1.4.  Other relevant EU policies ................................................................................ 6 
1.4.1. EU environmental legislation ....................................................................... 6 
1.4.2. Food and feed safety ..................................................................................... 6 
1.4.3. Digital Single Market Strategy ..................................................................... 7 
1.4.4. International Ocean Governance Agenda ..................................................... 7 
1.4.5. Strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions ................................ 7 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 8 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? ................................................................................. 8 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? .......................................................................... 9 
2.2.1. Lack of measures to control new provisions of the reformed CFP and lack 
of synergies with other policies .............................................................................. 9 
2.2.2. Complexity of the legislative framework and ambiguity of legal provisions

12 

2.2.3. Inadequate provisions for fisheries data ..................................................... 15 
2.2.4. Enforcement rules not deterrent enough ..................................................... 16 

2.3.  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 18 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 19 

3.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 19 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 19 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 19 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ..................................................... 19 

4.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 19 
4.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 20 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................... 21 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 22 
5.1.1. Environmental impacts ............................................................................... 22 

i 

 
 
 
5.1.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................... 24 
5.1.3. Social impacts ............................................................................................. 26 
5.1.4. Administrative burden ................................................................................ 27 

5.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 27 
5.2.1. Option 1: Targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control Regulation ....... 27 
5.2.2. Option 2: Targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control System ............. 29 

5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage ................................................................. 29 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................. 30 

6.1.  OPTION 1 "Amendment of the Fisheries Control Regulation" ...................... 30 
6.1.1. Environmental impacts ............................................................................... 30 
6.1.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................... 31 
6.1.3. Social impacts ............................................................................................. 32 
6.1.4. Administrative burden ................................................................................ 33 

6.2.  OPTION 2. Amendment of the Fisheries Control System .............................. 34 
6.2.1. Environmental impacts ............................................................................... 34 
6.2.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................... 35 
6.2.3. Social impacts ............................................................................................. 35 
6.2.4. Administrative burden ................................................................................ 35 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .................................................................. 35 

7.1.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 36 
7.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 37 
7.3.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 39 
7.4.  Acceptability .................................................................................................... 40 
7.4.1. Stakeholders' view ...................................................................................... 40 
7.4.2. Proportionality ............................................................................................ 41 

7.5.  Recommendations of other EU institutions and bodies .................................. 42 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................. 43 

8.1.  General overview ............................................................................................. 43 
8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 44 

9.  HOW  WILL  ACTUAL 

IMPACTS  BE  MONITORED  AND 

EVALUATED? ......................................................................................................... 45 

9.1.  Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 45 
9.1.  Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 46 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 48 

10.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ........................................ 48 

11.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ............................................................................ 48 

12.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB ............................................................................. 49 

13.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ............................................................... 51 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 54 

ii 

 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................... 65 

14.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE .......................................... 65 

15.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ............................................................. 67 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS .......................................................................... 69 

ANNEX  5:  SPECIFIC  SUB-OPTIONS  OF  THE  RETAINED  POLICY 

OPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 73 

ANNEX 6: DISCARDED TECHNICAL SUB-OPTIONS .............................................. 78 

ANNEX 7: SPECIFIC MEASURES OF THE CONTROL REGULATION ................... 82 

ANNEX 8: STAKEHOLDERS' DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 89 

ANNEX 9: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 
INSTITUTIONS  AND  BODIES  ON  THE 

OTHER  EUROPEAN 
EVOLUTION OF THE FISHERIES CONTROL SYSTEM .................................... 94 

ANNEX  10:  LIST  OF  STAKEHOLDERS  WHO  SENT  WRITTEN 

CONTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................................. 102 

iii 

 
GLOSSARY 

Discards 

Fishing activities 

Fishing capacity 

Fishing effort 

Fishing mortality 

Fish stock 

Landing obligation 

Maximum sustainable 
yield (MSY) 

Overfishing 

Regionalisation 

Spawning stock biomass 

Stock assessment 

Traceability 

Legal  unwanted  catches  returned  to  the  sea  during  fishing  operations, 
either dead or alive. 

Searching  for  fish,  shooting,  setting,  towing,  hauling  of  fishing  gear, 
taking  catch  on  board,  transhipping,  retaining  on  board,  processing  on 
board,  transferring,  caging,  fattening  and  landing  of  fish  and  fishery 
products. 

A vessel’s tonnage in GT (gross tonnage) and its power in kW (kilowatt) 
as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86. 

The product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group 
of  fishing  vessels,  it  is  the  sum  of  the  fishing  effort  of  all  vessels  in  the 
group;  also  the  amount  of  fishing  gear  of  a  specific  type  used  on  the 
fishing  grounds  over  a  given  unit  of  time  (e.g.  hours  trawled  per  day, 
number of hooks set per day, or number of hauls of a seine per day). 

An  expression  of  the  rate  at  which  fish  are  removed  from  a  stock  by 
fishing  (including  fish  discarded).  It  is  approximately  the  stock  annual 
removal expressed in percentage. 

A marine biological resource that occurs in a given management area; also 
the  living  resources  in  the  community  or  population  from  which  catches 
are taken in a fishery. Use of the term fish stock usually implies that the 
particular population is more or less isolated from other stocks of the same 
species and hence self-sustaining.  

The  obligation  to  land  all  catches  in  the  respective  fishery  in  accordance 
with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries 
Policy.  

The highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken on 
average  from  a  stock  under  existing  average  environmental  conditions 
without significantly affecting the reproduction process. 

A situation where a stock is subjected to a rate or level of fishing mortality 
that jeopardises the stock’s capacity to produce the MSY on a continuing 
basis.  

The  process  by  which  Member  States  with  a  direct  management  interest 
for  fisheries  in  a  given geographical  region  organise  themselves  with  the 
aim  of  agreeing  on  common  conservation  measures  within  EU  waters 
(Article 18 of the CFP). 

The total weight of all fish (both males and females) in the population that 
contribute to reproduction. Often defined as the biomass of all individuals 
beyond ‘age/size at first maturity’. 

Quantitative study that leads to predictions of how stocks will respond 
under various management actions. 

In accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 on Fisheries 
Control all lots of fisheries and aquaculture products shall be traceable by 
means  of  identification  tools  (e.g.  barcode,  electronic  chips)  or  physical 
documents  at  all  stages  of  production,  processing  and  distribution,  from 
catching or harvesting to retail stage.. 

iv 

 
 
 
ACRONYMS 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ACs 

BFT 

CCTV 

CFP 

CIR 

CMO 

CR 

EFCA 

EMFF 

ERS 

EU 

FCS 

FTE 

GVA 

ICT 

IUU 

LD 

LO 

MCA 

MS 

NGO 

REM 

RFMOs 

SN 

TD 

VMS 

Advisory Councils 

Bluefin Tuna 

Closed-Circuit Television 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Control Implementing Regulation 

Common Organisation of the Market in fishery and 
aquaculture products 

Control Regulation 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

Electronic Reporting System  

European Union 

Fisheries Control System 

Full-time equivalent 

Gross value added 

Information and communications technology 

Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (Fishing) 

Landing declaration 

Landing obligation 

Multi-Criteria Analysis 

Member States 

Non-governmental organisation 

Remote electronic monitoring technology 

Regional fisheries management organisations 

Sales notes 

Transport document 

Vessel Monitoring System 

v 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Rules  only  work  if  they  are  properly  enforced.  This  also  applies  to  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy (CFP). Its ambitious objectives for healthy fish and eco-systems, a profitable industry, 
viable coastal communities and food security can only be achieved if Member States and the 
EU  as  a  whole  have  a  proper  control  and  enforcement  system  in  place  that  ensures  that 
reliable, accurate and complete fisheries data are supplied on time, that Member States have 
the full control of their fleet, that measures are in place to allow effective controls of fisheries 
products  in  the  supply  chain  and  that  ultimately  a  widespread  culture  of  compliance  allow 
fishing  operators  to  compete  fairly.  A  first-rate  control  and  enforcement  system  is  also 
essential for the sake of the reputation of the EU fleet and of the EU as a whole globally. As a 
global ocean actor and the world's fifth largest producer of seafood, the European Union has a 
compelling  responsibility  to  protect,  conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans  and  their 
resources.  This  is  only  possible  if  appropriate  control  rules  exist  and  are  correctly 
implemented and enforced. 

A recent Commission REFIT evaluation1, a special report of the European Court of Auditors2 
and  a  Resolution  by  the  European  Parliament3  have  all  shown  that  the  Fisheries  Control 
System has its deficiencies and is overall not fit for purpose. 

Several  discussions  and  exchanges  of  view  have  taken  place  in  the  Council4,  in  the 
Parliament, in the Administrative Board of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)5, 
with Member States and with stakeholders since the publication of all these documents. Those 
discussions  confirmed  that  there  is  unanimous  agreement  among  the  European  Institutions 
and among direct stakeholders that the Fisheries Control System is not effective and efficient 
and  that,  as  such,  it  is  not  entirely  fit  for  purpose  to  sustain  the  achievements  of  the  CFP 
objectives.  Furthermore,  shortcomings  in  the  current  regulatory  framework  were  also 
identified by the REFIT Platform in June 2017 in its opinion on the submission by the Finnish 
Government Stakeholder survey on the control of EU fisheries6. 

Therefore, taking into  account the multiple requests from other Institutions, Member States, 
EFCA  and  stakeholders,  in  June  2017  the  Commission  launched  an  initiative  to  revise  the 
Fisheries Control System, with a view to ensure the proper functioning and implementation of 
the  CFP.  The  initiative  is  also  intended  to  provide  the  necessary  legal  basis  to  implement 
commitments recently taken by the Commission, and concerning in particular the fight against 
illegal fishing in the Joint Communication on Ocean Governance7, as well as to complement 
and support the implementation of the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy8 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

COM(2017) 192 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:192:FIN. 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41459. 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-
0407+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 
Council Conclusions on Special Report No 8/2017 from the European Court of Auditors entitled: 
"EU Fisheries Controls: more efforts needed": http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13323-2017-
INIT/en/pdf. 
https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%20Evaluation%20-%20Issuing%20of%20Recommendations.pdf 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xiv3acontrol_of_eu_fisheries.pdf  
JOIN(2016) 49 final. 
COM(2018) 28 final 16.01.2018 

1 

 
                                                            
 
the  Digital  Single  Market  strategy9  and  the  stronger  and  renewed  strategic  partnership  with 
the EU's outermost regions10. 

A  brief  description  of  the  CFP  and  its  relation  with  the  Fisheries  Control  System  (FCS)  is 
presented  in  Section  1.1,  while  Section  1.2  presents  the  FCS  in  detail,  with  particular 
emphasis on the Regulations covered by this Impact Assessment and that may be subject to 
amendments. To clarify possible synergies of this initiative with other policies areas, those are 
briefly presented in Section 1.3 and Section 1.4.  

This  impact  assessment  outlines  the  problems  of  the  current  framework,  including  their 
drivers and consequences, and sets the objectives. It also presents the main policy options and 
examines the potential impacts of these options from an environmental, social, economic and 
administrative viewpoint. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the policy decision is prepared in 
an open, transparent manner and with the best available knowledge. This impact assessment 
fulfils the requirements of the Better Regulation Guidelines of May 201511. 

1.1.  The Common Fisheries Policy 

Fishing resources and fishing activities are regulated in the EU through the CFP.  Designed to 
manage  a  common  resource,  the  CFP  gives  all  European  fishing  fleets  equal  access  to  EU 
waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly. At the same time, it aims 
to  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  are  environmentally,  economically  and  socially 
sustainable,  that  they  provide  a  source  of  healthy  food  for  EU  citizens  and  that  fishing 
practices do not harm the ability of fish populations to reproduce. 

While the CFP sets the principles and objectives for conserving marine biological resources 
and  for  managing  European  fishing  fleets,  its  implementation  is  achieved  through  other 
legislative acts emanating from the CFP, which lay down conservation measures for specific 
stocks,  fisheries  or  sea-basins  (e.g.  Multiannual  Managements  Plans  for  certain  stocks  or 
regions,  gear  restrictions,  definition  of  maximum  allowable  catches  or  fishing  efforts).  The 
CFP and its conservation measures are supported by the FCS, to ensure that rules are properly 
followed and enforced and to promote a culture of compliance across the EU. 

A  schematic  of  the  FCS  and  the  relations  between  conservation  and  control  measures  is 
provided in Figure 1. 

The  CFP  was  first  introduced  in  the  1970s  and  went  through  successive  updates,  the  most 
recent  of  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council (EU) No 1380/201312, also referred to as "reformed CFP".  

To  this  end,  the  reformed  CFP  stipulates  that  fish  stocks  should  be  managed  in  a  way  that 
allows them to reproduce at healthy levels in the long term13. It seeks to make fishing fleets 
more  selective  in  what  they  catch,  and  to  phase  out  the  wasteful  practice  of  discarding 
unwanted fish. This was achieved through the introduction of a so-called "landing obligation" 
(LO) or "discard ban", which entered into force in 2015 with gradual phasing in of stocks and 

9 

SWD(2017)  155  final:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. 

10  COM(2017) 623 final - http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/outermost-

regions/pdf/rup_2017/com_rup_partner_en.pdf. 

11  COM(2015)111. Better Regulation Guidelines. Strasbourg, 19.05.2015. 
12  Regulation  (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common 

Fisheries Policy (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013). 

13  To  this  end  the  CFP  uses  the  concept  to  exploitation  rate  at  the  maximum  sustainable  yield  (MSY),  which  shall  be 

achieved by 2020 for all stocks. 

2 

 
                                                            
full coverage in place by 1 January 2019. The landing obligation introduced by the reformed 
CFP represents a fundamental shift in the management approach to EU fisheries, which also 
requires  a  behavioural  shift  from  the  industry  and  a  novel  control  perspective  from  the 
competent  authorities  to  be  successful.  The  2013  reform  also  introduced  for  the  first  time 
objectives and provisions for the promotion of  the CFP principles at international level  (so-
called external dimension of the CFP).  

Figure 1: relations between the CFP, conservation measures and control measures 

1.2.  The Fisheries Control System 

The FCS in place today is the result of a thorough reform prompted by a special report issued 
by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  2007,  leading  to  the  adoption  or  review  of  the  following 
Regulations: 

  Regulation establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of 
the CFP (Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009)14 – hereafter "the Control Regulation";  

  Regulation  on  Illegal,  Unregulated  and  Unreported  (IUU)  Fishing  (Council  Regulation 

(EC) No 1005/2009)15- hereafter "the IUU Regulation"; 

  Regulation  for  on  the  sustainable  management  of  external  fleet  (Regulation  (EU)  No 

2017/2403)16; hereafter "the SMEF Regulation" 

14  Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, OJ 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1. 
15  Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, OJ L286 29.10.2008, p. 1. 
16  Regulation (EU) No 2017/2403 (OJ 347, 28.12.2017). 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
  Regulation  establishing  the  European  Fisheries  Agency  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 

768/2005)17. 

It  should  be  noted  that  while  these  Regulations  represent  the  four  pillars  of  the  Fisheries 
Control  System,  other  control  provisions  are  still  nowadays  present  in  a  number  of  other 
legislative  acts.  A  brief  description  of  the  Control  Regulation,  of  the  IUU  and  EFCA 
Regulation18 as well as other legislative acts containing control provisions and which will be 
affected by this initiative is provided below. 

1.2.1.  The Control Regulation 

The Control Regulation is the result of an in-depth reform that was completed in 2009, and 
which led to amending twelve Regulations and repealing another three. This Regulation lays 
down  in  its  134  Articles  a  very  extensive  set  of  rules,  the  objective  of  which  is  to  ensure 
overall  compliance  with  the  CFP  and  its  conservation  measures.  The  Regulation  provides 
obligations  addressed 
to  private  operators  (vessel  owners,  vessel  masters,  buyers, 
transporters), to  Member  States  and to  the Commission.  The ultimate goals are to: 1)  allow 
Member States to keep the fishing activities of their fleets and of third country fleets fishing 
in their waters under control; 2) ensure appropriate controls of fishery products in the supply 
chain, from the first sale to the retail sale; 3) make sure that each Member State puts in place a 
risk-based  system  for  inspections  and  takes  appropriate  enforcement  measures,  such  as 
sanctions and the assignment of points for serious infringements, to ensure compliance with 
the CFP ; 4) allow the Commission to keep the use by Member States of their fishing quotas 
under control and to take appropriate measures in case of non-compliance by Member States; 
5) ensure that appropriate fisheries data are collected, recorded, validated and analysed, that 
they are available to the relevant users, not only for mere control purposes, but also to provide 
scientists with the necessary data sets for better and more reliable stock assessments.  

The  Regulation  also  empowers  the  Commission  to  conduct  inspections,  verifications  and 
audits  in  the  Member  States  to  control  and  evaluate their application  of the  CFP  and  of  the 
control rules.  

The Control Regulation does not address the control of the landing obligation required by the 
reformed CFP. 

The  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  404/201119  lays  down  further  detailed 
rules for the implementation of the Control Regulation. 

1.2.2.  EFCA Founding Regulation 

EFCA  was  created  in  2005  with  the  primary  objective  of  organising  coordination  and 
cooperation between national control and inspection activities and authorities so that the rules 
of  the  CFP  and  its  control  system  are  respected  and  applied  effectively.  To  this  end,  the 
Agency  organises  the  deployment  of  national  human  and  material  means  of  control  and 
inspection  pooled  by  Member  States  in  Union  and  international  waters  as  well  as  on  land. 
EFCA can also carry out inspections, limited to international waters. EFCA also supports the 
European  Union  in  the  international  dimension  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP) 
through  a  series  of  activities  encompassing  training  and  support  to  the  Commission  in  the 
fight against IUU activities and in international multilateral fora. The Agency, in cooperation 

17  Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ 128, 21.5.2005). 
18   The SMEF Regulation has just being revised and entered into force in 2018. The revision of the FCS as described in this 

impact assessment does therefore not cover this Regulation.  

19  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 (OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p.1). 

4 

 
                                                            
with  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  and  the  European  Maritime  Safety 
Agency,  each  within  its  mandate,  supports  the  national  authorities  carrying  out  coast  guard 
functions20. 

1.2.3.  The IUU Regulation 

This Regulation establishes an EU system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing in EU 
and  international  waters.  In  order  to  achieve  this  goal,  the  Regulation  introduced  a  "Catch 
Certification Scheme" to prohibit trade with the EU of fishery products stemming from IUU 
fishing, as well as a number of tools to facilitate communication and cooperation between the 
EU,  Member  States  and  third  countries  and  to  inspect  third  country  fishing  vessels  in  EU 
ports.  The  Regulation  also  works  alongside  the  Control  Regulation  for  the  prosecution  of 
serious infringements committed by EU and by third country fishing vessels. 

1.2.4.  Other fisheries legislative acts with control provisions  

Despite  the  consolidation  that  took  place  with  the  2009  reform,  specific  control  provisions 
remain to date outside the legislative acts referred to above as "EU fisheries control system". 
This  is  particularly  the  case  for  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006  concerning  management 
measures  for  the  sustainable  exploitation  of  fishery  resources  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea21 
(Mediterranean  Regulation)  and  for  Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1139  establishing  a 
multiannual  plan  for  certain  stocks  in  the  Baltic  Sea  (Baltic  Regulation22).  While  the 
Mediterranean  Regulation  contains  provisions  that  are  obsolete  or  are  already  partially 
covered by the Control Regulation, thus leading to difficult reading/interpretation, the Baltic 
Regulation introduced a number of derogations to the Control Regulation that would become 
obsolete  in  the  context  of  the  revision  exercise  as  presented  in  this  impact  assessment. 
Targeted amendments to these Regulations are therefore presented in this initiative.  

1.3.  Other relevant fisheries policy elements: EMFF and CMO 

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 23 and the Common Organisation of the 
Market commonly  referred to  as "CMO"24 are the main fisheries legislative acts  with direct 
links  with  the  FCS.  As  they  will  be  mentioned  throughout  this  document  they  are  for 
completeness also briefly presented.  

The  EMFF  is  the  main  supporting  financial  instrument  to  the  CFP.  It  seeks  to  improve  the 
social, economic and environmental sustainability of Europe’s seas and coasts by supporting 
local projects, businesses and communities on the ground. The EMFF allocated 580 M€ for 
control  and  enforcement  in  the  period  2014-2020.  Projects  eligible  for  funding  include  data 
validation  systems,  purchase  of  control  means  (e.g.  devices  for  the  measurement  of  engine 
power), purchase, installation and development of technology, including computer hardware 
and software (e.g. CCTVs, ICT networks), catch certification schemes, tracking of vessels and 
electronic  reporting  systems,  traceability  and  implementation  of  specific  control  and 
inspection  programmes  coordinated  by  the  EFCA.  The  post-2020  EMFF  is  currently  under 
development. 

20   EFCA Founding regulation was amended in 2016 for the establishment of a European Cooperation Function on Coast 
Guard [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]. 

21   OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
22   OJ L 191, 15.7.2016, p/ 1. 
23   Regulation (EU) No 508/2014, OJ 149, 20.5.2014, p.1. 
24   Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p.1. 

5 

 
                                                            
The  CMO  is  the  basis  for  managing  the  market  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  products.  It 
regulates  the  organisation  of  the  sector  (producer  organisations),  marketing  standards, 
consumer  information  rules,  competition  rules  and  market  intelligence.  The  Control 
Regulation is relevant for the correct application of the CMO, insofar as it lays down a series 
of  provisions  for  controls  in  the  supply  chain,  including  traceability  provisions  that  are 
essential for fulfilling consumer information requirements.  

1.4.  Other relevant EU policies 

As  already  mentioned  in  Section  1,  the  FCS  is  directly  or  indirectly  related  to  other  EU 
policies,  such  as  environment  and  food  and  feed  law,  as  well  as  recently  adopted  strategies 
such as the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, the Digital Single Market 
strategy,  the  International  Ocean  Governance  and  the  stronger  and  renewed  strategic 
partnership  with  the  EU's  outermost  regions.  For  clarity  reasons  a  brief  summary  of  those 
policies and their links with fisheries is given below. A detailed analysis on links and issues 
between these policies and the FCS is presented in Section 2.2. 

1.4.1.  EU environmental legislation 

The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive25  aims  to  achieve  or  maintain  a  good 
environmental  status  in  the  marine  environment  by  2020.  One  of  the  measures  to  be 
implemented  is  the  use  of  "spatial  protection  measures"  contributing  to  the  creation  of 
coherent and representative networks of "marine protected areas". Those areas cover among 
others the so-called Natura 2000 network of protected marine territories established under the 
Habitats26 and Birds27 Directives. Marine Natura 2000 areas address pressures from fisheries 
and  other  activities,  including  by  establishing  the  necessary  fishery  management  measures, 
such as fishing restrictions, in order to meet the conservation objectives of the areas.  

The European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy aims at limiting plastic litter and 
better  recycling  it.  Fishing  gears  lost  or  abandoned  at  sea  are  one  of  the  sources  of  marine 
litter and through the Strategy the European Commission committed to develop measures for 
reducing the loss or abandonment of fishing gear at sea. The Control Regulation sets rules on 
gear retrieval and as such its revision can contribute to better reaching the objectives of the 
Strategy. 

1.4.2.  Food and feed safety 

The  general  principles  of  food  and  feed  law  are  outlined  in  the  General  Food  Law 
Regulation28.  They  form  a  horizontal  framework  underpinning  all  Union  and  national 
measures  relating to  food and feed.  They cover all  stages of the production, processing and 
distribution of food and feed. The Food Law establishes that only safe food and feed can be 
placed on the Union market or fed to food-producing animals. It also establishes basic criteria 
for  establishing  whether  a  food  or  feed  is  safe.  To  this  end,  the  Regulation  defines 
traceability29 provisions throughout the food chain and operators' responsibilities. 

25   Directive 2008/56/EC, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. 
26   Directive 92/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 
27   Directive 2009/147/EC, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7. 
28   Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. 
29   The  Food  Law  defines  traceability  as  the  ability  to  trace  and  follow  food,  feed,  and  ingredients  through  all  stages  of 

production, processing and distribution. 

6 

 
                                                            
1.4.3.  Digital Single Market Strategy  

One of the Commission's ten priorities put forward by President Juncker is to remove barriers 
to a digital single market in Europe. A Digital Single Market Strategy was therefore published 
by  the  European  Commission  in  2015  to  reduce  existing  barriers  which  presently  limit 
businesses  and  governments  from  fully  benefit  from  digital  tools.  The  Commission  also 
undertook  steps 
technologies,  by  adopting  an 
interoperable  electronic 
Implementation Strategy for a European Interoperability Framework30. The good functioning 
of  the  FCS  is  based  on  the  collection,  recording,  transmission,  processing  and  exchange  of 
large volumes of data. However the current system is still largely paper-based, thus not taking 
advantage  of  new  and  more  efficient  digital  solutions.  The  exchange  of  data  among  the 
various  actors  is  thus  sub-optimal,  calling  for  better  integration  and  new  interoperable 
solutions. 

to  promote 

1.4.4.  International Ocean Governance Agenda 

The  Joint  Communication  on  international  ocean  governance  builds  on  a  widely  shared 
understanding that the ocean governance framework needs to be strengthened, that pressures 
on the oceans need to be reduced and that the world's oceans must be used sustainably. It also 
stresses that a better understanding about the oceans is necessary to achieve these objectives. 
The  Communication  lays  down  a  series  of  actions,  among  which  action  7  'Fighting  illegal 
fishing  and  strengthening  the  sustainable  management  of  ocean  food  resources  globally', 
through which the Commission committed to strengthen action on IUU fishing by improving 
current  systems  and  supporting  Member  States  in  ensuring  efficient  controls  through  the 
development of electronic tools. 

1.4.5.  Strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions 

Despite  the  progress  that  they  have  made  over  the  years,  the  outermost  regions  continue  to 
face serious challenges, which are further amplified by globalisation and by climate change. 
Their  development  is  fragile.  In  2017  the  Commission  committed  to  pursue  its  efforts  and 
further  maximise  the  potential  of  the  outermost  regions,  including  on  the  so-called  blue 
economy, and called the Member States to step up the collection of scientific data concerning 
fisheries and adopt possible conservation measures and restrictions. Given the fisheries data 
stemming  from  the  Control  Regulation  are  a  critical  source  of  input  for  scientists  and  that 
control underpins the effective implementation of conservation measures, the revision of the 
FCS is also relevant in the context of this strategic partnership. 

Figure 2 below summarises the links between the policies described above and the Fisheries 
Control System, relevant issues are further presented in Section 2. 

30 COM(2017) 134 Final.  

7 

 
                                                            
Figure 2: Links between recently adopted EU policies versus the FCS and relevant issues.  

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is/are the problems? 

An  effective  and  efficient  fisheries  control  system,  which  is  able  to  address  and  prevent 
instances of IUU fishing and to enhance a culture of compliance across the EU, its Member 
States and fleets, is essential for the fulfilment of the CFP principles and its objectives. It is 
also essential for the credibility of the EU and of its fisheries policy at international level. 

Two main problems have been identified: 

1.  The  current  EU  FCS  was  designed  prior  to  the  reformed  CFP  and  as  such  it  is  not 
coherent  with  it.  Notably,  the  "landing  obligation"  introduced  by  the  reformed  CFP, 
requiring fishermen to phase out the wasteful practice of discards at sea, has not yet been 
complemented by corresponding EU measures to ensure its control and enforcement. The 

8 

 
 
lack of effective control provisions on this essential pillar of the CFP is putting at risk the 
effective implementation of the whole EU Fisheries Policy; 

2.  The current FCS reflects control strategies, methodologies and challenges  of more than 
10  years  ago,  and  it  is  not  equipped  to  effectively  address  current  and  future  needs  in 
terms  of  fisheries  data  and  fleet  control,  to  match  the  constant  evolution  of  fishing 
practices and techniques and to take advantage of modern and more cost-effective control 
technologies and data exchange systems. The current system also does not reflect new and 
modern EU policies recently adopted, such as the plastic strategy, the digital single market 
strategy, and the international ocean governance. The existing numerous derogations and 
exemptions  at  national  level  are  not  only  an  obstacle  to  effective  controls  but  also 
constitute  a  burden  for  fishermen  and  supply  chain  businesses  operating  in  different 
Member  States.  Last  but  not  least,  the  current  system  does  not  effectively  promote  a 
culture  of  compliance  and  significant  loopholes  have  emerged  in  the  implementation  of 
current enforcement rules, which warrant their revision. 

As  a  result  of  the  above,  the  current  system  lacks  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  As  already 
stated  in  Section  1,  this  was  broadly  highlighted  by  the  four  European  Institutions  (the 
European  Commission,  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  and  the  Court  of  Auditors), 
which recently published a series of reports, evaluations and conclusions pointing at the need 
to revise the framework. Member States and stakeholders31 also repeatedly called for action, 
recognising that the current system is not fit for purpose. 

The  drivers  of  the  problems  mentioned  above  are  analysed  in  detail  in  Section  2.  For 
simplicity of presentation they have been grouped as follows: 

  Lack of measures to control new provisions of the reformed CFP and lack of synergies 

with other policies; 

  Complexity of the legislative framework and ambiguity of legal provisions; 
 
Inadequate provisions for fisheries data; 
  Enforcement rules not deterrent enough. 

2.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

2.2.1.  Lack of measures to control new provisions of the reformed CFP and lack 

of synergies with other policies 

Both the Control and the EFCA Founding Regulations were adopted32 before the current CFP 
and have never been aligned to its new principles and key provisions.  

As mentioned in Section 1.1 one of the most important elements introduced for the first time 
in  2013  in  the  reformed  CFP  to  reduce  overfishing  and  promote  innovation  and  more 
selectivity is the LO. A summary of the volume of catches covered by the LO as per 2017 is 
provided in Table 1. 

31   The position of the different stakeholders on the implementation of the Control Regulation, its effectiveness and 
efficiency is summarised in the Consultation: Evaluation of the fisheries control regulation, summary report of the results. 
32   The major amendment of EFCA Founding Regulation dates to 2009 when it was revised through the Control Regulation 
to comply with the new provisions in this new legislative act. It was again amended in 2016 but the amendment was limited 
to  the  establishment  of  a  European  Cooperation  on  Coast  Guard  functions  (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). 

9 

 
 
                                                            
Table 1 Stocks covered by the landing obligation in 201733 

In  this  respect,  the  main  shortcoming  identified  in  the  Control  Regulation  by  the  REFIT 
evaluation is the absence of measures empowering Member States to effectively control the 
LO. The level of proof required to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt suspected or observed 
discarding events is practically impossible to obtain using traditional means of control, such 
as  aerial  surveillance,  inspections  at  sea  or  inspections  at  landing.  Remote  electronic 
television  (CCTV)  have 
monitoring 
demonstrated the potential to be an effective means to ensure control and enforcement of the 
landing obligation and provide a deterrent to illegal discarding. However, for those measures 
to be applied, Member States would require targeted mandatory provisions to be laid down in 
the Control Regulation. 

incorporating  closed-circuit 

technology  (REM) 

The CFP also sets so-called fishing capacity ceilings for Member States by limiting both the 
total engine power and the gross tonnage of their fleets. The Control Regulation lays down a 
series of provisions to ensure that those parameters are checked, but experience showed that 

33  SWD(2017) 256 final. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
current  verifications  do  not  prevent  possible  manipulations  of  the  engines,  resulting  in 
potential  under-reporting  of  fishing  capacity  and  thus  in  Member  States  possibly  exceeding 
their capacity ceilings in the CFP.  

Concerning  EFCA's  Founding  Regulation,  the  recent  second  five-year  external  evaluation 
of the Agency highlighted important mismatches between the mandate of the Agency and the 
new CFP priorities and objectives. This led EFCA's Administrative Board to issue a number 
of  recommendations  in  June  last  year,  calling  for  the  Commission  to  align  the  Agency's 
mandate with the new CFP, and notably the landing obligation and the external dimension of 
the  CFP.  Also,  the  EFCA's  founding  act  is  not  aligned  with  the  Common  approach  on 
decentralised agencies34. 

Critical lacks of synergies with other policies were also identified by the REFIT evaluation, 
and highlighted by stakeholders.  

First,  the  Control  Regulation  does  not  allow  Member  States  to  effectively  control  fishing 
activities  in  marine  protected  areas  under  the  Natura  2000  network  and  in  other  spatial 
conservation areas such as those established under Article 1135 of the CFP and Article 436 of 
the  Mediterranean  Regulation.  The  number  and  extension  of  those  areas  has  been 
increasing  over  recent  years  and  this  positive  trend  is  expected  to  continue.  It  is  therefore 
important  to  urgently  address  the  lack  of  measures  available  to  Member  States  to  properly 
monitor and control fishing activities in areas subject to special conditions for environmental 
concerns. Also the Control Regulation could support the new European Strategy for Plastics 
with improved measures regarding the retrieval of fishing gears. 

Secondly,  the  Control  Regulation  is  not  aligned  with  the  general  principles  (traceability, 
cooperation  rules,  responsibility  of  operators)  laid  down  in  the  food  law.  This  creates 
confusion  and  poses  problems  to  the  authorities  when  enforcing  the  fishery  and  the  food 
control legislations.  

The  current  FCS  remains  a  complex  and  cumbersome  system,  still  largely  based  on  paper-
data, and as such not in line with the Digital Single Market Strategy. 

Last, but not least, another major issue is constituted by the provisions in the IUU Regulation 
on the so-called "Catch Certificate". The EU depends heavily on imports of fish products to 
satisfy its demand, as they provide about two thirds of the supply to the EU market (2015). 
Products imported into the EU market have to be accompanied by a paper Catch Certificate. 
This  document  only  accompanies  the  product  until  customs,  where  it  is  used  to  clear  the 
consignment  and  to  allow  it  to  be  placed  on  the  EU  market.  The  transmission  of  the  Catch 
Certificate  is  only  made  between  operators  on  a  voluntary  basis,  when  further  steps  in  the 
supply  chain  request  this  document  or  information  included  therein.  The  risk  that  products 
sold on the EU market stem from IUU fishing activities is a growing concern in the supply 
chain.  On  top  of  depleting  stocks,  IUU  fishing  causes  reputational  damage  in  the  eye  of 
consumers that affects all economic operators, regardless of whether they are engaged in these 
activities or supply their products from IUU sources or not. Thus, the possibility that products 
stemming from IUU fishing may enter the EU market poses a reputational risk for all actors 
involved  in  the  EU  supply  chain  for  fish  products,  even  more  so  given  the  high  EU 

34 

Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission on decentralised 
agencies (https://europa.eu/european-
union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf). 

35  Conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union environmental legislation. 
36  Protected habitats. 

11 

 
                                                            
dependency on imports. The current Catch Certificate is based on an inefficient and obsolete 
paper-based  system,  which  not  only  prevents  efficient  fraud  detection  but  results  in  a  huge 
administrative burden for national competent authorities, for EFCA and for the Commission. 
Digitising the catch certificate would require a targeted modification of the IUU Regulation 
and  would  have  multiple  benefits  in  terms  of  the  capacity  to  provide  assurance  on  imports, 
notably: 

– 

– 

– 

it would allow the information to be integrated within the EU traceability system required 
by the Control Regulation, thus making sure that information would be readily available at 
all  stages  of  the  supply  chain  thereby  speeding  up  transactions  between  economic 
operators; 
it  would  reduce  the  risk  of  fraudulent  information  being  entered  at  the  source  or  of 
document falsification;  
it would allow customs authorities to exchange information on imports in a more effective 
manner, thereby strengthening the EU control capacity. 

These benefits would have trickle down effects on the EU market. The risk of IUU products 
entering the EU market would be drastically reduced, thereby reducing the reputational risk 
for economic operators in the sector and allowing them to maintain the high level of consumer 
trust they enjoy at present. 

It  should  be  also  noted  that  digitising  the  catch  certificate  will  allow  implementation  of  the 
Action 7 'Fighting illegal fishing and strengthening the sustainable management of ocean food 
resources  globally'  as  stated  in  the  International  ocean  governance  agenda,  and  reported  in 
Section 1. 

2.2.2.  Complexity of the legislative framework and ambiguity of legal provisions 

The current Control Regulation is the result of a thorough reform, which consolidated in one 
single  legal  act  control  provisions  which  were  previously  scattered  among  23  different 
Regulations.  Although  this  exercise  constituted  an  important  step  forward  towards 
simplification,  harmonisation  and  better  coherence,  the  system  remains  complex  and 
provisions are often unclear and open to different interpretations. This negatively affects 
the effective enforcement of rules by the control and judicial authorities of Member States. It 
also  impacts  operators,  in  that  they  do  not  have  certainty  and  predictability  as  to  the  legal 
consequences of their actions. 

Furthermore,  despite  the  consolidation  attempt  of  the  2009  reform,  a  number  of  control 
provisions remain scattered in various Regulations, namely the Mediterranean Regulation 
and  the  Multiannual  Plan  for  the  Baltic  Sea.  Some  of  those  provisions  are  obsolete,  while 
others  derogate  from  the  Control  Regulation  provisions  in  the  sea-basin  where  they  apply. 
This  creates  unbalanced  and  discriminatory  treatment  of  fishermen  across  the  EU,  which  is 
contrary to the spirit and raison-d'être of an EU Fisheries Control System. 

Supply chain operators and fishermen also complained about the rigidity of the current legal 
framework  and  about  certain  rules  that  do  not  correspond  to  the  current  state-of-the-art 
methods  of  control,  while  Member  States  pointed  at  the  unnecessary  administrative  burden 
created by multiple reporting obligations (as Flag State, Coastal State, State of sale) and by 
sometimes unnecessary reporting provisions. 

The  control  of  fishing  activities  at  EU  level  requires  substantial  and  continuous  data  and 
information  exchange  among  the  different  players  (operators  to  Member  States,  between 
Member  States,  the  Commission,  and  EFCA).  The  exchange  of  all  this  data  remains 

12 

 
 
cumbersome and inefficient, often requiring multiple reporting and ICT systems to be used. 
While the Commission is developing an integrated Fisheries Data Management programme, 
which  takes  a  holistic  approach  replacing  the  existing  patchwork  of  data  management 
methods  by  a  coherent  and  efficient  new  concept,  its  effectiveness  is  hampered  by  the 
obsolete  provisions  in  the  Control  Regulation  imposing  direct  exchange  of  data  between 
Member  States.  According  to  current  practices  the  central  node  of  the  Commission  is  used 
simply as a system for dispatching messages coming from Member States, while no retention 
of data is legally possible. To obtain such data the Commission has to address a specific query 
to  the  Members  State  or  it  is  given  the  possibility  to  download  them  manually  or 
automatically from Member States databases. An example of the complexity of data exchange 
requirements for a typical case of fisheries activities is presented in Figure 3. 

Such a system not only results in excessive administrative burden for the Member States and 
the  Commission,  but  also  represents  a  waste  of  tax-payers'  money  for  the  development  and 
use of multiple ICT tools37. 

Figure 3:  Example of a workflow fishing activity report. Dutch vessel fishing in English, French, and Spanish 

waters and landing in Portugal. 

The  current  control  system  also  requires  the  co-existence  of  various  national  electronic 
databases  (such  as,  for  instance,  the  electronic  database  for  inspection  and  surveillance 
reports,  the  electronic  database  containing  the  list  of  all  fishing  licences  and  fishing 
authorisations,  the  vessel  monitoring  system  computer  files  recorded  by  its  fisheries 
monitoring centre). While the Commission should have permanent access to those databases, 
de  facto  it  was  only  provided  with  such  access  by  a  few  Member  States.  Again  the 
Commission  has  to  make  specific  queries  to  obtain  information.  This  situation  is  not  only 
inefficient  and  creating  unnecessary  administrative  burden,  but  it  also  lacks  effectiveness 

37  

ICT expenditures for Member States are reimbursed by the Union through the EMFF. There have been cases where the 
same company developed a software and sold it to different Member States, so in practice the same development has 
been reimbursed several time by the EU. 

13 

 
 
                                                            
insofar as it does not allow the Commission to have a clear picture on the status of fisheries 
control in the various Member States. 

The  Control  Regulation  contains  provisions  for  the  full  traceability  of  fisheries  and 
aquaculture products from catch to the retail stage. Stakeholders and Member States consider 
that  traceability  is  not  effective,  and  the  REFIT  evaluation  confirmed  that  implementation 
across Member States is inconsistent. 

The  Control  Regulation  introduced  the  obligation  to  ensure  traceability  for  all  fishery  and 
aquaculture  products  sold  in  the  EU  market,  leaving  to  each  Member  State  the  task  of 
defining  its  set-up,  but  without  ensuring  interoperability  between  Member  States' 
systems.  The  seamless  circulation  of  goods  within  the  internal  market  is  particularly 
important in the case of fish products, since intra-EU exchanges make up for half of overall 
EU trade of this commodity, despite the EU's heavy reliance on imports. This means that the 
flows  within  the  EU  market  tend  to  add  value  to  the  raw  material,  and  thereby  to  create 
economic  benefits.  By  removing  the  barriers  that  an  incomplete,  non-interoperable 
traceability system poses, an EU-wide traceability system will therefore help to strengthen the 
internal market and increase economic prosperity within the EU.  

Other  problems  for  the  effective  control  of  the  supply  chain  are  the  lack  of  clarity  on 
responsibilities and accountability of business operators, the lack of legal basis for electronic 
traceability systems and the fact that the current system is exclusively designed for EU fishery 
products, and does not allow the use of certain data on imported fishery products from third 
countries (Figure 4). 

Figure 4: Documentation requirements for the trade of fisheries products and controls in the supply chain. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3.  Inadequate provisions for fisheries data  

Fisheries data, and in particular catch data, are the metric by which fishery managers monitor 
the progression of a fishery. Accurate, effective and timely reporting mechanisms are critical 
to  support  this  monitoring  process.  Catch  data  are  needed  to  make  informed  management 
adjustments,  such  as  adjusting  catch  limits,  quotas,  granting  or  withdrawing  licences  or 
closing the fishery as needed, to prevent exceeding catch limits.  
Flaws  in  the  data reporting  process also  erodes the  quality of  the  fish  stock  assessment  and 
hence  of  the  scientific  advice  for  the  management  of  the  fishery.  Compromised  scientific 
advice  may  impede  the  effective  management  of  the  resource  and  jeopardise  future  harvest 
and thus fleets profitability. Proper fisheries data backing a sound scientific advice is of great 
importance  especially  in  the  Mediterranean,  where  currently  the  status  of  the  majority  of 
stocks remains unknown, with only 35 fish stocks currently subject to scientific advice, and 
where even the total number of fish stock is today unknown. 

Fisheries data recording, monitoring and submission as provided for in the Control Regulation 
are  affected  by  several  drawbacks  and  important  limitations,  which  inevitably  affect  the 
quality of those data and ultimately compromise sound management decisions at national, EU 
and also international level.  

The main drivers are to be found in the numerous exemptions and derogations, notably for 
certain  categories  of  vessels,  as  well  as  for  recreational  fisheries38,  which  are  currently 
exempted from providing fisheries data.  

In  addition,  there  is  no  obligation  to  report  catches  below  50  kg  for  all  vessels.  Only  this 
derogation, mostly relevant for small vessels, could leave unaccounted today up to 350.000 t 
of  fish..  Since  the  small  scale  coastal  fleet  in  the  Mediterranean  represent  57%  of  the  total 
small  scale  coastal  fleet,  accounting  for  63%  of  the  fishing  effort  and  22%  of  the  value  of 
landings., up to 180,000 t might remain undeclared in the Mediterranean, i.e. over 4 times the 
reported ones. 

Provisions  for  the  submission  of  fisheries  data  for  vessels  below  10  m  have  proved  to  be 
highly  ineffective  and  catch  data  for  this  category  of  vessels  are  largely  unaccounted  for. 
Furthermore, reporting for small vessels between 10 and 12 m is still largely paper based, as 
provided by current derogations, despite the existence and accessibility of more modern and 
cost-efficient electronic reporting tools. This has a huge impact on national authorities as data 
received from paper sources must be entered into their databases manually and subsequently 
transmitted 
the  quota  consumptions. 
Furthermore,  manual  typing  increases  the  chances  of  mistakes,  which,  together  with  the 
exemptions  for  vessels  below  10  m,  seriously  undermine  the  completeness  and  accuracy  of 
fisheries data at EU level39. 

the  European  Commission  for  monitoring 

to 

The lack of minimum control measures for recreational fisheries is the root cause of what 
can be considered today a considerable and unacceptable information gap, both on the exact 
pool  of  participants  in  those  fisheries  (number  of  vessels,  number  of  fishermen)  and  on 
relevant catch data. Recreational fishing has been on the rise in EU Member States. There are 
an  estimated  8  to  10  million  recreational  fishermen  in  Europe  spread  across  the  various 
Member  States  and  sea  basins,  with  the  UK,  France,  Italy  and  Norway  showing  the  largest 
numbers  (750,000-1.5  million).  This  number  has  grown  throughout  the  years  and  is  likely 

38  Recreational fishing activities encompass all activities for which placing on the market of catches is not allowed. This 

includes recreational and sport fishing, angling and subsistence fishing. 

39  Overall 70713 EU vessels are below 12m, of which 65333 are smaller than 10m. 

15 

 
                                                            
continue to do so. The growing number of recreational fishermen is a matter of concern as it 
has  a  direct  and  increasing  impact  on  fish  stocks,  including  on  commercial  ones  subject  to 
catch limits. Although there is generally a lack of data when it comes to recreational fishing, 
recent studies and estimates show large numbers of catches for certain important stocks. For 
example, scientists estimated that for 2017 the volume of catches for seabass in the Atlantic 
by  EU  recreational  fishermen  largely  exceeds  that  of  commercial  ones.  The  situation  for 
Eastern  Baltic  cod  is  similar,  while  data  are  lacking  on  several  other  stocks  and  sea  basins. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  health  of  stocks  whether  catches  are  for  commercial  or 
recreational  purposes  is  irrelevant,  as  both  amount  to  removing  fish  from  the  sea,  which 
increases fishing mortality and reduces biomass for reproduction. However, because catches 
from  recreational  fisheries  are  largely  unaccounted  for,  their  exclusion  slows  down 
environmental  recovery  and  delays  achieving  the  full  economic  and  social  benefits  from  a 
situation of generalised fishing at sustainable levels. 

Finally,  due  to  exemptions  and  derogations  related  to  weighing  of  catches  after  landing, 
each quantity of each species landed is not always correctly accounted for and the results are 
not always recorded in mandatory catch registration documents. This not only undermines the 
legality of the fishing activities but also jeopardises quota uptake monitoring. 

2.2.4.  Enforcement rules not deterrent enough 

The  whole  enforcement  system40  is  to  a  large  extent  unclear,  with  provisions  scattered 
between the Control Regulation and the IUU Regulation. This is a major drawback and source 
of  confusion  for  the  Member  States,  who  strongly  called  for  a  more  streamlined  system.  In 
addition,  the  lack  of  clear  and  harmonised  rules  on  sanctions  for  infringements  of  the  CFP 
rules41 led to a situation where not only the levels of sanctions are substantially different from 
one  Member  State  to  another,  but  where  the  same  type  of  infringement  can  be  punished  in 
very different ways (e.g. administrative fines, withdrawal of licence, points assigned or even 
criminal  proceedings),  depending  on  the  Member  State  identifying  it.  In  certain  cases, 
whereas  in  one  Member  State  the  same  infringement  can  lead  to  prosecution,  it  will  not  be 
prosecuted at all in another Member State. Some of those divergences in handling are down to 
the  inevitable  differences  in  the  national  judicial  systems.  Others  are  due  to  the  fact  that 
current rules are so designed that unequal treatment of fishermen across the EU will continue 
to perpetrate. Such inequality of treatment runs counter to the very  raison d'être of the CFP 
and  undermines  the  basis  for  establishing  a  solid  culture  of  compliance  across  the  EU. 
Furthermore,  when  the  sanction  does  not  ensure  that,  as  a  minimum,  the  perpetrator  is 
deprived of the economic benefits of the illegal activity, recidivism is significant, resulting in 
a negative impact on the environmental resources and ultimately on the society.  
Also,  the  point  system  42for  serious  infringements  is  not  uniformly  applied  by  Member 
States.  This  is  due  to  the  lack  of  standard  definitions  of  serious  offences  to  the  rules  of  the 
CFP, and to the fact that the criteria for defining serious infringements are to a large extent at 
the discretion of Member States43. The rules on the point system also lack clarity on several 

40  See Annex 7, paragraph 1 for a short description of the enforcement system. 
41  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. 

42  The Control Regulation foresees a point system for serious infringements on the basis of which a fishing licence should 
be  suspended  or  even  withdrawn  if  a  certain  number  of  points  have  been  attributed  to  the  holder  of  a  fishing  licence 
following the detection of a serious infringement. 

43  From  Art  (90.1)  "the  gravity  of the  infringement  […]  shall  be  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". 

16 

 
                                                            
aspects: e.g. it is not clear whether points are applicable to the licence holder in a case where 
the  serious  infringement  concerns  an  obligation  addressed  to  the  master  of  the  vessel.  The 
scope of application of the point system for masters is not clear either, and, unlike the point 
systems for licence holders, the definition of this system - including the number of points to 
be attributed - is left entirely to Member States. 

The  penalty  points  system  introduced  for  serious  infringements  was  supposed  to  lead  to  a 
better and more harmonised enforcement of the CFP rules. However, it is now apparent that 
the system in place, which was designed more than 10 year ago, is not fit for purpose. Since 
the point system is not applied with equal criteria by Member States, fishermen are allocated 
different  points  for  the  same  infringement  depending  on  where  this  is  committed, 
exacerbating unfair competition and inequality between fishermen.  

Another critical problem is the fact that Member States, but also the Commission, have no 
direct  access  to  infringements  identified  and  prosecuted  in  other  Member  States.  This  is  a 
serious drawback for the effective management and control of Member States' fleets (e.g. a 
typical case is that of a Member State where the catch is landed detecting an infringement for 
a  vessel  flying  the  flag  of  another  Member  State,  the  latter  however  not  always  being 
informed). This is due to the fact that the transmission of information relating to inspections 
and infringements between Member States is not mandatory. 

Figure  5  below  provides  a  schematic  overview  of  the  existing  problem,  their  drivers  and 
consequences, which are presented in greater detail in the following paragraphs. 

Figure 5: Schematic overview of the existing problems (red box), their drivers (yellow boxes) and 

consequences (orange boxes) in fisheries control. 

17 

 
 
2.3.  How will the problem evolve? 

Without  addressing  the  regulatory  failures  which  characterise  the  current  legal  framework, 
little can be done to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the current system. Both 
the REFIT evaluation carried out by the Commission and the recent recommendations of the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  are  clear  in  this  respect  and  there  was  broad  consensus  among 
stakeholders. 

By  fully  implementing  existing  rules,  including  derogations  and  exemptions,  most  issues 
could be only partially addressed. However, this would require imposing on Member States to 
pursue  the  implementation  of  provisions  which  are  often  obsolete  and  largely  inefficient, 
which are neither aligned with current available technologies nor state-of-the-art (e.g. digital 
systems  for  data  recording  and  transmission)  and  which  will  eventually  entail  major 
investments without bringing the expected benefits. 

The  main  negative  outcomes  of  not  properly  addressing  the  problems  identified  would 
encompass the following areas: 

  Compliance  with  the  CFP  and  fulfilment  of  CFP  objectives:  If  the  current  control 
system is not adapted to the reformed CFP and is not properly modernised, there is a very 
high risk of undermining the objectives of the CFP itself and its very raison d'être. Notably, 
the  landing  obligation  introduced  by  the  reformed  CFP  would  remain  without  proper 
control means and provisions. If compliance with the CFP is not ensured, the international 
reputation and credibility of the EU will also be affected in bilateral and multilateral fora. 

  Administrative burden and costs: The complexity of the current system will continue to 
be a serious issue. Administrative procedures and requirements that are largely inefficient 
and  often  useless,  that  could  be  replaced  by  more  effective  and  efficient  means,  would 
remain  in  place  as  required  by  the  legislation.  Once  more,  this  will  have  negative 
repercussions  as  costs  will  be  borne  by  Member  States,  tax-payers  and  operators.  It  will 
also negatively impact the image and credibility of the European Institutions, which would 
be seen as responsible for imposing obsolete, burdensome and anachronistic provisions. 

  Fisheries  Data:  The  current  limitations  in  the  recording,  transmission,  sharing  and 
processing of  fisheries  data  can  only  be  overcome  to  a  limited  extent.  Major  investments 
and efforts will be necessary to possibly improve the quantity of data for small vessels, but 
their quality and reliability will remain weak. Data from recreational fisheries will remain 
largely  unavailable,  if  not  totally  unknown,  to  the  detriment  of  scientific  advice  and  of 
decision-making  for  more  sustainable  fish  stocks.  Member  States  will  continue  to 
experience major hurdles in the exchange of data for their vessels and operators and would 
not benefit from centralised systems for the sharing of data and of information. Overall, this 
will have a negative impact on the ability of Member States to take action, to ensure better 
controls and to enforce the rules. 

  Culture of compliance and equal treatment of fishermen: One of the main objectives of 
having a common control system at EU level is to ensure that fishermen and operators are 
treated  fairly  and  equally.  This  is  yet  to  be  achieved  and  current  rules,  even  if  their 
implementation  is  stretched  to  the  maximum,  contain  structural  and  important  limitations 
which  hinder  the  achievement  of  a  level-playing  field.  This  has  in  turn  negative 
implications  for  an  accrued  culture  of  compliance  which  will  be  difficult  to  promote  if 
equal treatment is not ensured and if conditions for unfair competition are not redressed. 

18 

 
3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

The legal basis for this initiative is provided in Article 3(d) of the Treaty. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The CFP and its control is an area of  exclusive EU competence pursuant to Article 3(d) of 
the Treaty and therefore the subsidiarity principle does not apply.  

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The EU added value of the policy intervention is recognised by all stakeholders, as well as by 
the European Institutions and Member States, which strongly agreed that EU intervention is 
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  the  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.  

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objectives 

The  main  objectives  of  this  initiative  are  making  the  Union  fisheries  control  system  more 
effective and efficient and ensuring full compliance with the reformed CFP.  

The objectives of the CFP are listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and are 
reported below for clarity: 

  The  CFP  shall  ensure  that  fishing  […]  activities  are  environmentally  sustainable  in  the 
long-term  and  are  managed  in  a  way  that  is  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  achieving 
economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food 
supplies.  

  The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim 
to  ensure  that  exploitation  of  living  marine  biological  resources  restores  and  maintains 
populations  of  harvested  species  above  levels  which  can  produce  the  maximum 
sustainable yield […] by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at 
the latest by 2020 for all stocks. 

  The CFP shall contribute to the collection of scientific data. 

  The CFP shall: 

o  gradually  eliminate  discards  […]  by  avoiding  and  reducing,  as  far  as  possible, 

unwanted catches, and by gradually ensuring that catches are landed; 

o  provide conditions for economically viable and competitive fishing capture industry; 
o  provide  for  measures  to  adjust  the  fishing  capacity  of  the  fleets  to  levels  of  fishing 

opportunities […]; 

19 

 
 
o  contribute  to  an  efficient  and  transparent  internal  market  for  fisheries  and 
aquaculture products and contribute to ensuring a level–playing field for fisheries and 
aquaculture products marketed in the Union; 

o  promote coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- economic aspects; 
o  be coherent with the Union environmental legislation […], as well as with other Union 

policies. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives of this initiative are as follows: 

  Remove  obstacles  that  hinder  the  development  of  a  culture  of  compliance  and  the 

equitable treatment of operators within and across Member States; 

  Simplify the legislative framework and reduce administrative burden; 

 

Improve availability, reliability and completeness of fisheries data and information, in 
particular of catch data, which are key to monitor and deliver on the CFP objectives 
and allow exchange and sharing of information; 

  Bridge the gaps with the CFP and with other EU policies. 

The general and specific objectives and their relation with the identified problems are 
presented in Figure 6. 

20 

 
Figure 6: Schematic overview of the existing problems and general and specific objectives of 

this initiative. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

Following the results of REFIT evaluation different policy options that would allow tackling 
the shortcoming identified and achieve the objectives set in Section 4 were discussed. 

21 

 
 
 
Five  policy  options  were  considered:  (Baseline)  No  policy  change  but  full  enforcement  of 
current  rules;  (1)  Targeted  amendments  of  the  Fisheries  Control  Regulation;  (2)  Targeted 
amendments of the Fisheries Control System; (3) Complete revision of the Fisheries Control 
System;  (4)  Repeal  of  the  Control  Regulation  and  introduction  of  relevant  measures  in 
multiannual management plans at regional level. 

The third and fourth options were discarded at an early stage. The other three most relevant 
policy options have been retained for further analysis and comparison.  

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The baseline for assessing the impacts of the other options proposed is the current legislative 
framework, i.e. no policy change but full enforcement of current rules. The REFIT exercise 44 
concluded  that,  while  the  main  provisions  of  the  Control  Regulation  are  implemented,  full 
compliance is yet to be met and a number of improvements could be achieved by a reinforced 
implementation  and  enforcement  by  Member  States.  The  main  areas  affected  by  these 
shortcomings are linked to enforcement, data availability, quality and sharing, the control of 
the landing obligation, synergies with other policies and legislation. Since those areas are also 
tackled by policy Options 1 and 2, the impact of full enforcement of the current provisions in 
those areas are explicitly presented in the Sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.4. 

5.1.1.  Environmental impacts 

Over  the  past  few  years  there  has  been  significant  progress  achieving  environmental 
sustainability45.  Overall,  overexploitation  has  declined  drastically  across  all  areas  (with  the 
exception  of  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Sea)  and  the  number  of  stocks  with  MSY46 
assessment  increased.  Fleet  capacity  reductions  over  2008  to  2016,  conservation  measures, 
and  the  implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  contributed  to  it.  It  should  be  noted 
however  that  the  situation  in  the  North-East  Atlantic  and  in  the  Mediterranean  are  quite 
different. It has been estimated that in the Mediterranean the average fish biomass declined by 
20%  between  2003  and  2014.  By  contrast,  it  registered  a  35%  increase  in  the  North-East 
Atlantic,  although  still  around  30%  of  stocks  in  this  sea  basin  remain  overfished  and  not 
within  the  expected  biological  limits.  So  overall,  despite  the  improvements  in  the 
environmental status  of  stocks in  recent  years, there remain significant regional differences, 
and there is still considerable room for improvements in performance. 

As explained in Section 1 the main tools to reduce overfishing are conservation measures (e.g. 
fishing quotas, regional management plans, fishing restricted areas, and technical measures –
which  set  where,  when  and  to  how  to  fish).  Control  measures  are  essential  in  supporting 
reduction  in  overfishing  insofar  as  they  allow  keeping  under  control  fishing  activities  and 
ultimately ensure that conservation measures are respected. 

Although  a  number  of  additional  elements  have  to  be  factored  in  the  whole  equation  (e.g. 
externalities  in  the  form  of  climate  change  and  natural  stock  fluctuations'  impact  on 
environmental  indicators)  it  is  therefore  indisputable  that  an  effective  and  efficient  control 
system  contributes  to  the  positive  environmental  status  of  stocks.  In  the  attempt  to  quantify 
such  positive  contribution,  despite  the  lack  of  targeted  data,  a  number  of  case  studies  were 

44  SWD(2017) 134 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2c2f2554-0faf-11e7-8a35-

01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 

45  COM(2017) 368 final:  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the State of Play of the Common 

Fisheries Policy and Consultation on the Fishing Opportunities for 2018. 

46  According to the CFP, a stock is considered in good condition when stocks are above levels which can produce the so-

called Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). 

22 

 
                                                            
conducted47.  These  studies  compared  fisheries  targeting  the  same  species  with  and  without 
specific and reinforced control actions.  

The main results of the first case study comparing the sole fishery in the North Sea and in the 
Bay of Biscay was that the recovery of the fish stocks to sustainable biological limits is likely 
to be attained more quickly if tighter control and monitoring of fishing activities are deployed. 
The  rebuilding  of  the  spawning  stock  biomass  is  also  faster  in  case  of  tighter  control 
measures. 

A  second  case  study  on  Bluefin  Tuna  (BFT)  fishery  shows  that  increased  compliance  with 
conservation  and  management  rules  from  2008,  and  in  particular  catch  limits,  as  a 
consequence of a strengthened control scheme, supported the rebuilding of the stock, which 
was  almost  on  the  verge  of  collapse.  As  a  result,  the  fleet  was  allowed  to  considerably 
increase fishing quotas from 2015 onwards. 

A third case study of the Northern hake stock shows that with improved control from 2008, 
the stock could exceed sustainable biological levels beyond the CFP requirements. 

By contrast, a review of the situation of the EU fishing fleet operating in the Mediterranean 
shows that lack of monitoring, control and enforcement can have detrimental impacts. In the 
Mediterranean, it is estimated that over 90% of stocks are overexploited without any tangible 
indications  of  recovery.  Some  commercially  important  stocks  cannot  be  assessed,  or  are 
assessed  only  with  a  great  degree  of  uncertainty,  because  of  a  lack  of  relevant  data,  in 
particular  from  small-scale  fishing  vessels  and  recreational  fishermen  both  of  which  are 
particularly numerous in this sea basin. 

A  more  detailed  assessment  of  the  environmental  impacts  that  a  full  enforcement  of  the 
provisions in the current legislative framework was also carried out and led to the following 
conclusions: 

Enforcement (sanctioning systems) - A study commissioned by the European Commission48 
in  2000  analysed  the  short  term  economic  benefits  of  fraud,  including  the  perception  of 
fishermen  of  control  measures  and  offences,  likely  impact  of  increased  surveillance, 
likelihood  of  being  identified,  economic  reward  of  fraud  and  additional  value  added.  The 
results  show  that  net  benefits  deriving  from  illegal  activities  in  Europe  could  amount  to  up 
200M€  and  that  a  robust,  deterrent,  and  enforced  control  system  increases  the  culture  of 
compliance  of  fishermen  with  the  CFP.  In  the  Baseline,  the  level  of  consistency  between 
Member States on the application of sanctions for infringements would remain weak, and the 
differences between national systems would not be eliminated. This might  de facto induce a 
culture of non-compliance with CFP rules among fishermen, including overfishing, therefore 
strongly hindering the achievement of good biological status of fish stocks. 

Data  availability,  quality  and  sharing  -  Reporting  of  data  from  small  vessels  could  be 
improved  through  full  enforcement  of  specific  control  measures  (e.g.  those  recently 
introduced in the Baltic Regulation) and better implementation of the sampling plans used by 
Member  States  to  control  vessels  below  10m.  The  estimated  benefits  however  would  not 
substantially  increase,  as  the  vessels  covered  by  direct  reporting  of  catches  thanks  to  Baltic 
Regulation would increase only by 1.2% of the total EU fleet, with still significant data gaps 

47  Assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy  options  proposed  for  the  Amendment  of  the  Fishery  Control  System 

(COFFEY 2018). 

48   Cost benefit comparison of different control strategies (Oceanic Development, 2000) 

23 

 
                                                            
of information needed for the assessment of resource status, especially in the Mediterranean. 
The lack of EU control for recreational fisheries would also continue to hinder the quality of 
catch  data.  Weaknesses  would  remain  in  the  weighing  practices  at  landing.  This  would 
perpetuate  shortcomings  in  quota  uptake  monitoring,  and  undermine  environmental 
sustainability. Problems would also remain in correctly establishing/certifying engine power 
at  MS  level  against  capacity  ceilings,  which  are  so  important  in  ensuring  environmental 
sustainability of fish stocks.  Exchange of fisheries data between Member States, and access 
of the Commission to control-related data would also remain unsatisfactory, impacting on the 
enforcement of regulations designed to ensure CFP objectives of environmental sustainability. 

Landing obligation - Control tools available to Member States would only cover a very small 
proportion  of  the  fishing  fleet  on  a  real-time  basis  by  seagoing  inspection  activities,  and 
would  still  provide  considerable  opportunity  for  discarding  by  fishermen  without  detection. 
Average  discard  rates49  for  selected  fisheries  and  gear  types  in  the  EU  are  estimated  to  be 
significant.  Under  a  scenario  of  full  enforcement  of  the  current  legislative  framework  these 
rates  would  not  be  expected  to  significantly  decline.  In  addition,  budgetary  limitations  in 
Member  States  and  the  high  at-sea  costs  would  not  prevent  discarding,  with  associated 
negative environmental impacts. 

Synergy with other policies and legislation - As presented in Section 2.2.1 Article 50 of the 
Control Regulation provides for control of fishing restricted areas adopted by the EU Council, 
but not for all marine protected areas defined by Member States under Natura 2000 network 
of the Habitat Directive. As a result, not all marine protected areas are explicitly covered by 
the remit of the Control Regulation and no further environmental improvement can be gained 
under the Baseline. As regards lost fishing gears, current rules on reporting are burdensome 
and inefficient, and do not take advantage of other existing reporting tools. As a result they 
are  hardly  used.  In  addition,  certain  categories  of  vessels  are  currently  exempted  from 
carrying on board equipment to retrieve lost gears.  
Also  synergies  with  market  and  in  particular  positive  indirect  environmental  impacts 
attributable to traceability of fishery products would remain compromised under this option, 
threatening an effective and consistent control from ‘net to plate’. 

5.1.2.  Economic impacts 

Studies published in scientific journals suggest that exploiting EU fish stocks in compliance 
with  the  CFP  would  result  in  high  economic  benefits  for  the  EU  fishing  communities.  The 
benefit for the EU fishing fleet could be as high as an extra €4.54 billion operating profit per 
year50. This represents a maximum economic gain 3.5 times higher than the current operating 
profits of the EU fleet. 

This is consistent with the fact that, with the implementation of the CFP, the overall economic 
situation of the EU fleet in the period 2008-2015 has been regularly improving at a significant 
rate51  (see  Figure  7).  These  improvements  coincide  with  the  improved  environmental 
performance  achieved  thanks  to  the  current  legislation  (resulting  in  improved  fishing 
opportunities)  and  are  also  driven  by  a  steep  decline  to  low  stable  fuel prices  as  from  2014 
and lower fuel usage in recent years, and by improvements in some first-sale fish prices. 

49  Over  2014-2016,  44.8%  for  beam  trawls,  28.8%  for  bottom  otter  trawls,  2%  for  midwater  otter  trawls,  17.7%  for  set 

gillnets, and 1% for trammels nets (for the fisheries included) (COFFEY 2018). 

50  Marine Policy 72(2016)40–47. Sustainability now or later? Estimating the benefits of pathways to maximum sustainable 

yield for EU Northeast Atlantic fisheries. 

51  The 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing fleet (STECF 17-12). 

24 

 
                                                            
Economic  performance  at  EU  level  however  varies  considerably  between  regions,  Member 
States  and  fisheries.  Generally,  economic  performance  trends  are  better  in  the  North  Sea, 
North-East Atlantic and Baltic fleets than those fleets fishing in the Mediterranean and Black 
seas  fleets,  although  the  latest  economic  data  in  the  Baltic  Sea  suggests  a  poorer  economic 
performance among certain fleets. The economic situation of certain small-scale coastal fleets, 
in  particular  in  the  Mediterranean,  continues  to  be  of  concern,  in  contrast  with  the  overall 
improvement  in  the  EU  large-scale  and  distant-water  fleets.  For  the  EU  small-scale  coastal 
fleet,  all  indicators  show  a  decline  in  performance  over  the  period  2008-2013,  but  with 
improvements in 2014 and 2015 and predicted declines between 2016 and 2017. 

Figure 7. Trends in economic performance of the EU fleet Source: STECF, 2017 (STECF 17-12) 

The small  scale coastal  fleet (so prevalent in  the Mediterranean compared to  other areas) is 
exempted  from  numerous  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  by  the  Control  Regulation. 
Under the Baseline further improvements in economic performance over subsequent years are 
still  to  be  expected,  driven  by  the  improvements  in  environmental  performance  (stocks 
conservation). However, considering the existing inertia and the fact that full implementation 
of  the  current  legislative  framework  will  anyway  not  be  able  to  tackle  major  identified 
shortcomings, no major differences in impacts are expected compared to the current situation. 
In particular, in geographical areas where environmental and thus economic performance has 
been  poor  e.g.  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Sea,  the  limited  positive  environmental 
impacts  would  be  unlikely  to  bring  about  any  meaningful  positive  changes  in  economic 
performance. 

Overall, achieving the full economic potential of fishing stocks at biological sustainable limits 
will be hampered by the continuation of existing problems and shortcomings. The economic 
benefits gained by those fishermen that do not comply with the rules would continue, partly 
due  to  the  failure  of  the  sanctioning  system.  This  represents  an  economic  cost  to  compliant 
fishermen, as direct competitors to the non-compliant ones. The economic benefits gained by 
non-compliant fishermen would also represent a direct negative environmental impact, as well 
as an indirect cost to society from the negative impact of illegal fishing behaviour on stocks.  

The  case  studies  referred  in  Section  5.1.1  allowed  estimating  the  economic  impacts  of  the 
Fisheries Control System under the Baseline scenario. The results clearly  show that quicker 
recovery  of  the  stocks,  linked  to  better  controls,  is  also  associated  with  higher  economic 
performance indicators.  

In the case of sole fishery in the North Sea, reinforced controls supported a GVA increase by 
8% per year on average over the 2008-2015 period, compared to the 2% per year for the Bay 
of  Biscay  (no  reinforced  control).  In  the  North  Sea  fishing  vessel  profitability  indicators 

25 

 
 
increased by 2% on average per year, while they remained fairly stable for the Bay of Biscay 
sole fishery.  

The  assessment  of  control  costs,  compared  to  the  benefits  in  terms  of  GVA,  supports  the 
conclusion that improved control would result in positive economic impacts for the EU fleet 
with  a  clear  positive  cost-benefit  ratio  (i.e.  costs  of  control  vs  economic  benefits);  the  case 
study  of  sole  fishery  suggests  that  the  cost-benefit  is  positive  with  1  €  invested  in  control 
supporting the creation of 3.7 € for the EU economy (GVA estimates do not include economic 
benefits for ancillary industries, so in reality, the cost-benefit ratio is probably higher). 

Unfortunately the relative lack of economic data on some EU fishing fleet segments targeting 
BFT  prevents  a  detailed  economic  analysis  for  this  fishery.  In  addition,  the  BFT  market  is 
especially exposed to external factors outside the remit of the EU (i.e. economic and societal 
situation in Japan). Nonetheless, the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet targeting 
BFT  substantially  improved  on  average  over  the  past  five  years  and  GVA  increased  at  an 
average of 2.4 € million per year, while vessel profitability indicators increased by 4-5% per 
year. Therefore, also this case study supports the view that improved control would be likely 
to generate positive economic impacts and with a positive cost-benefit ratio (with 1 € invested 
in control supporting creation of 2 € for the EU economy). 

The Northern hake fishery benefitted from a clear economic improvement over the 2008-2015 
period.  Income  doubled  over  the  period,  the  gross  value  increased  threefold  and  the  gross 
profit increased sixfold. Correspondingly, fishing fleet profitability ratios also increased over 
the  period  with  average  annual  increase  rates  of  about  2%.  As  in  the  previous  cases,  the 
benefit/cost of control appears also positive with 1 € invested in control supporting creation of 
2.2 € for the EU economy. 

In  contrast,  economic  (and  social)  indicators  in  the  Mediterranean  have  been  deteriorating 
over  the  past  few  years  for  the  whole  EU  fleet,  with  some  important  fishing  fleet  segments 
nearing a situation of economic collapse and some Member States fishing fleets consistently 
operating with negative economic results. 

5.1.3.  Social impacts 

Positive social impacts resulting from an enhanced control system are not so evident in some 
cases; in particular as regards job creation, mainly because the fisheries sector, as with most 
other sectors of the EU economy, sees a process of replacing labour by capital. Hence, better 
economic  results  could  mean  higher  capital  investments  resulting  in  more  technologically 
intensive vessels. Additional factors like the reduced fleet capacity and reduced fishing quotas 
in line with the CFP also contributed also to the decline in employment. 

Both the case studies on sole and Northern hake fisheries did not show any clear trend in the 
number  of  full  time  equivalent.  Nevertheless,  the  evolution  of  crew  remuneration  tells  a 
different story: average wages per crew member on fleet segments targeting sole increased by 
50%  more  per  year  in  the  case  of  tightened  control,  lending  weight  to  the  argument  that 
improvements in control supported social benefits in the form of quality of employment over 
the longer-term.  Also the average wage  for hake  fishermen  shows a positive evolution  with 
average yearly wage almost doubling over the period, reflecting the increased profitability of 
the vessels concerned. 

In  the  case  of  BFT,  the  significant  quota  increases  supported  a  rise  in  the  number  of  jobs, 
which can be again indirectly attributable to tighter control measures on the fleet. 

26 

 
The  full  enforcement  of  the  current  Control  Regulation  would  therefore  bring  some  limited 
positive social impacts for the EU fleet in terms of wages, but –as for the economic impacts- 
only in the longer term, especially due to better enforcement and compliance with the landing 
obligation. However, in geographical areas where environmental and thus social performance 
has  been  poor  e.g.  the  Mediterranean,  the  limited  positive  environmental  impacts  of  full 
enforcement  of  the  current  Control  Regulation  would  be  unlikely  to  bring  about  any 
meaningful positive changes in social performance. 

The Baseline, again for the failure of addressing systematic shortcomings of the sanctioning 
system,  is  also  not  considered  to  bring  any  fundamental  change  in  the  social  behaviour  of 
fishermen towards greater compliance. 

5.1.4.  Administrative burden 

The  REFIT  evaluation  shows  that  the  Control  Regulation  is  very  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.    While  the  use  of  modern  technologies  and  the 
development  of  electronic  fisheries  information  systems  allowed  for  a  decrease  of  the 
administrative burden for both operators and public administration, the analysis showed that 
the Control Regulation has potential for further decreasing administrative burden, for instance 
by promoting the use of digital and interoperable systems. 

The  full  implementation  of  the  current  legislative  framework  is  expected  to  dramatically 
increase  the  administrative  burden  of  businesses  (90.3M€  over  a  5  year  period)  and  public 
authorities (71.0M€) due to the better enforcement of monitoring and control of vessels below 
12m52. 

Also  the  full  implementation  regarding  current  rules  on  sharing  of  information,  e.g.  on  the 
establishment and maintenance of national databases and specific queries or manual download 
of data from the European Commission to access Member States data, are assumed to increase 
the  costs  compared  to  the  Baseline,  and  notably  by  4.6M€  for  the  public  administrations  in 
Member States and by 2.0M€ for the European Commission53. A total increase of 167.9 M€ 
over a five year period is therefore expected for this option. 

A summary of the administrative burden for the Baseline is provided in Table 3 in (Section 
7.2) 

5.2.  Description of the policy options 

5.2.1.  Option 1: Targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control Regulation 

This  option  considers  targeted  amendments  of  the  Fisheries  Control  Regulation  (hereinafter 
"Control Regulation") limited to the following thematic areas: 

i) Enforcement, including sanctions, point system and follow-up of infringements; 

ii)  Data  availability,  quality  and  sharing,  with  particular  regard  to  better  reporting  and 
tracking for vessels below 12m, data on recreational fisheries, weighing procedures and data, 
monitoring of the fishing capacity, and data management and sharing at EU level; 

52   Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

53   Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

27 

 
                                                            
iii) Control of the landing obligation; and 

iv) Synergies with other policies, in particular with the environment, market, food and feed 
policies and with the policy on the fight against IUU fishing. 

The amendments in these areas will among other things clarify provisions currently prone to 
different  interpretations  and  leading  to  disparate  implementation  by  Member  States  and 
address  numerous  derogations  that  hinder  the  level  playing  field  among  EU  fishermen. 
Overall, the legislative framework will be simplified and unnecessary administrative burden 
will  be  reduced  by  either  removing  reporting  obligations  or  by  streamlining  them.  Full 
digitisation of control data, setting the conditions for integrated EU information systems and 
databases  and  promoting  the  use  of  harmonised  and/or  interoperable  ICT  tools  will  be 
instrumental in this respect. Last but not least, the Regulation will be aligned with the Lisbon 
Treaty. 

The core assumptions for this option are summarised below: 

  Rules on enforcement are clarified and strengthened; 
  Requirements established are all duly justified by a purpose, easily understandable and 

technically enforceable (simplification);  

  All  vessels are tracked and  electronically report their catches (electronic reporting is 
introduced for vessels below 12 m, replacing the current paper-based system, with an 
easy and cost-effective system, making use of easy and affordable electronic devices 
such as mobile phones); 

  Control measures for recreational fisheries are introduced; 
  Weighing, transport and sales procedures are clarified and simplified to ensure that all 

catches are taken into account and reported; 

  The responsibilities and accountability of operators at all process stages are clarified; 
  The  information  and  reporting  systems  are  fully  digitised  and  where  possible 

streamlined; 

  Data exchange and sharing among relevant actors is ensured; 
  Control of the landing obligation is regulated; 
 
Interoperability of traceability systems is promoted; 
  Control of fisheries in marine protected areas is ensured; 
  When  the  CFP  can  contribute  to  reaching  the  objective  of  other  EU  policies,  and 
respectively  when  other,  non-fisheries,  policies  can  support  CFP  objectives,  bridges 
are set up so as to ensure synergies and coordination. 

It should be noted that under this Option, the choice of amending only some of the provisions 
in the areas that show shortcomings but not all of them (for instance amending the provisions 
on  the  enforcement  but  not  data  availability,  quality  and  sharing)  was  early  discarded  as  it 
would not have allowed achieving the objectives set. 

In addition, following the publication of the Inception Impact Assessment54, various technical 
sub-options  were  identified  for  tackling  the  identified  shortcomings  in  each  area.  In  this 
impact assessment, however, only those sub-options prone to achieve the set objectives with 
minimal administrative burden and that found support from the majority of stakeholders were 

54 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4808152_en 

28 

 
                                                            
fully  investigated.  A  list  of  the  technical  sub-options  discarded  and  related  motivations  is 
provided in Annex 6, while Annex 5 gives specific details on the retained sub-options. 

5.2.2.  Option 2: Targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control System 

Policy  Option  2  builds  upon  policy  Option  1.  It  considers  all  the  actions  proposed  in  the 
policy  Option  1  plus  i)  amendment  of  the  EFCA  founding  Regulation  and  ii)  of  the  IUU 
Regulation as regards enforcement and the catch certificate; and iii) any related amendments 
of specific provisions in relevant legislation (i.e. the Mediterranean Regulation and the Baltic 
Regulation). 

The  core  assumptions  for  this  option  are  all  those  of  Option  1,  complemented  by  the 
following:  

  Enforcement rules in the Control Regulation and IUU Regulation are consolidated; 
  Control provisions that are currently spread across other legal texts are concentrated in 
one  legal  instrument  or,  if  not  up-to-date  or  consistent  with  other  provisions, 
repealed55;  

  An electronic IUU catch certificate is introduced (currently paper based system); 
  The EFCA missions and tasks are fully aligned to the CFP; 
  The  EFCA  procedures  and  working  practices  are  adapted  to  take  into  account  the 
Common Approach on decentralised agencies as adopted in the 2012 Joint Statement 
of the European Parliament the Council of the EU and the European Commission. 

Specific  details  on  amendments  proposed  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  those  actions  are 
presented in detail in Annex 5. 

5.3.  Options discarded at an early stage 

Two  policy  options  were  discarded  at  an  early  stage:  the  full  revision  of  the  Fisheries 
Control  System  and  the  repeal  of  the  Control  Regulation,  followed  by  incorporation  of 
control rules into fisheries management plans at regional level. 

The full revision of the fisheries control system aimed at radically changing the approach in 
the control policy, by deviating from current  principles and priorities and fully re-designing 
the  current  system  at  national  and  EU  level.  This  option  was  not  well  received  by 
stakeholders,  the  majority  of  which  supported  an  evolution  rather  than  a  revolution  of  the 
current system. A complete change in the control approach would not ensure the return on the 
investments  made  so  far  and  allow  the  achievement  of  the  anticipated  benefits  on  the  long 
term. The majority of stakeholders agree that the principles embedded in the current Control 
Regulation  tackle  issues  that  have  in  the  past  led  to  extensive  overfishing  and  poor 
compliance  and  as  such  should  not  be  changed  but  rather  some  of  the  provisions  for  their 
implementation should be amended where it was found that they are obsolete or of difficult 
application.  

The  repeal  of  the  Control  Regulation  envisaged  a  radical  change,  by  repealing  the 
harmonised control measures set in the Control Regulation and rather adopt tailored control 
solutions in the framework of multiannual management plans at regional level. However, this 
approach  was  discarded  early  for  several  reasons.  First,  such  an  approach  would  be  against 

55  This is specifically the case for the control measures contained in the Mediterranean Regulation and in the Multiannual 

Plan for the Baltic Sea. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
the principles for a Union fisheries control system as laid down in the CFP (Article 36), which 
shall be based on a global, integrated and common approach and on a Union framework for 
controls,  inspections  and  enforcement.  Secondly,  such  an  approach  would  not  create  the 
conditions  for  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  among  the  operators  as  it  would  increase 
inequalities  and  ultimately  lead  to  discriminatory  treatments  not  only  among  operators,  but 
also  among  fishery  products  placed  on  the  EU  market.  Thirdly,  multiannual  management 
plans  are  being  progressively  adopted  at  regional  level,  but  they  do  not  and  will  not 
necessarily  cover  all  regions  and  all  fisheries,  thus  leaving  entire  areas  and  species  entirely 
unprotected by control and enforcement measures. 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This  section  presents  the  environmental,  social,  and  economic  impacts  assessed  for  the 
retained  policy  options,  as  well  the  administrative  burden  and  other  impacts  against  the 
Baseline56. Details on the methodology are presented in Annex 4. 

6.1.  OPTION 1 "Amendment of the Fisheries Control Regulation" 

6.1.1.  Environmental impacts 

Under Option 1, the proposed amendments would serve to support and contribute to a range 
of  positive  environmental 
in  all  sea  basins,  with  particularly  significant 
environmental  improvements  expected  in  the  Mediterranean57.  The  contribution  of  the 
amendments  proposed  in  the  Control  Regulation  for  the  four  different  thematic  areas  that 
would be affected are presented in detail below.  

impacts 

Enforcement  (sanctions  systems):  The  level  of  consistency  between  Member  States  on  the 
application of sanctions for infringements would improve, and sanctions would be better set at 
a  level  to  act  as  a  deterrent  to  infringements.  Earlier  studies58  have  shown  how  the  level  at 
which sanctions are set, coupled with the likelihood of being inspected and of infringements 
being detected, is a critical factor in affecting compliance with regulations intended to ensure 
environmental  sustainability.  The  harmonisation  of  the  sanctioning  system  is  therefore 
expected  to  result  in  considerable  improvements  on  enforcement  of  the  CFP  rules,  with 
expected large positive returns for the environment. 

Data  availability,  quality  and  sharing:  The  number  of  vessels  below  12m  tracked  and 
reporting catches electronically would rise from 1.2% of the total fleet under the Baseline, to 
100% under Option 1. The improved control would result in increased quality and availability 
of  data  required  for  resource  assessments,  and  thus  in  net  positive  environmental  impacts 
(better and more reliable stock assessment). Given the large proportion of small vessels in the 
Mediterranean,  this  means  that  significant  environmental  improvements  would  be  likely  in 
this basin. The improved control at regional level of recreational fisheries, especially the ones 
having  a  significant  and  consistent  impact  on  fish  stocks,  would  provide  the  basis  for 
additional management measures on those types of fisheries, resulting in turn on better stock 
assessment.  The  digitisation  of  the  data  information  system  will  also  significantly  enhance 
availability  and  exchange  of  data,  contributing  therefore  to  improved  enforcement  of 

56   Assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy  options  proposed  for  the  Amendment  of  the  Fishery  Control  System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

57   Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery C ontrol System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

58   Oceanic Development, 2001. Cost benefit comparison of different control strategies. Final report 

30 

 
                                                            
regulations designed to ensure the CFP objective of environmental sustainability. In terms of 
weighing  of  catches,  the  actions  specified  under  Option  1  would  remove  exemptions  and 
close  current  loopholes,  again  leading  to  improved  data  for  the  monitoring  of  quota  uptake, 
and  in  turn  supporting  more  accurate  assessment  of  fishing  mortality  to  feed  into  stock 
assessments.  Improved  data  on  engine  power  would  contribute  to  positive  environmental 
impacts  through  enhanced  ability  to  ensure  a  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  fishing 
effort  in  compliance  with  capacity  ceilings  as  set  out  by  the  CFP.  Increased  environmental 
benefits could have been achieved with tighter control measures, as for instance imposing to 
recreational  fisheries  the  same  rules  as  commercial  fisheries.  This  sub-option  however  was 
discarded (see Annex 6) as the estimated extra benefits would not have been proportional to 
the  imposed  additional  costs  and  administrative  burden  and  as  such  also  not  supported  by 
certain  groups  of  stakeholders  (in  particular  in  general  Member  States  did  not  support 
extending the current control rules to recreational fisheries at EU level). 

Landing obligation: The introduction of CCTV systems on vessels identified as being at high 
risk of discarding would significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of control and 
compliance. The extent of the positive environmental impacts generated from catch data used 
in stock assessments being a more accurate reflection of fishing mortality, would depend on 
the number of vessels considered by Member States as required to have CCTV systems, and 
their  levels  of  discards  in  the  absence  of  CCTV.  Also  in  this  case  additional  environmental 
benefits could have been achieved through tighter rules, as for instance requiring the presence 
of observers on board of fishing vessels or impose the mandatory use of remote continuous 
electronic  monitoring  tools  (e.g.  CCTV)  on  board  of  all  vessels.  Again,  however,  the  extra 
benefits  would  not  have  been  proportional  to  the  estimated  costs  and  therefore  were 
discarded.  In  addition,  the  stakeholder  consultation  revealed  that  businesses  did  not  support 
full  coverage  of  all  fishing  vessels  with  CCTVs  or  even  100%  coverage  for  certain  pre-
defined  categories  of  vessels  (see  Annex  6).  An  approach  based  on  risk  was  therefore 
considered more appropriate, as it would possibly reward compliant operators and would also 
require the authorities to regularly update their control strategies. 

Synergy  with  other  policies  and  legislation:  The  actions  foreseen  in  Option  1  to  increase 
synergies with environmental legislation would result in an additional 510.451 km2 of marine 
protected areas59 being fully covered by the remit of the Control Regulation compared to the 
Baseline.  This  impact  would  be  particularly  beneficial  in  the  Mediterranean,  where  the 
activities  of  recreational  fleets,  the  increased  use  of  spatial  restrictions  and  the  potential 
impact of non-EU fleets on marine protected areas' integrity are particularly relevant. 

6.1.2.  Economic impacts 

The  proposed  amendments  under  Option  1,  will  result  in  a  series  of  positive  economic 
impacts for the business, most of which stems from the positive environmental impacts and in 
particular the better status of the stocks. 

As previously described in the introduction to this section, case studies provide quantitative 
estimates on economic impacts of improved control. Collectively they show that the positive 
economic impacts of an improved control system can be  realised in the  medium- to longer-
term, and in periods of less than five years. The case studies show that, as a consequence of 
quicker  stock  recovery,  supported  by  a  reinforced  control  scheme,  an  improved  control 
system  would  potentially  assist  in  achieving  higher  economic  performance  indicators.  The 

59  European  Environment  Agency as  at  6th  April  2017.  Based  on  declared  percentage  of  Natura  2000  areas  with  marine 

territories. Some Member States are not considered in this figure. 

31 

 
                                                            
higher performance could therefore support the view that Option  1 would  help in achieving 
the ideal status of generalised fishing at sustainable levels quicker and at a reasonable cost. 

The  positive  economic  impacts  on  EU  fleets  could  generate  positive  indirect  economic 
impacts  in  the  downstream  processing  and  marketing  sectors  (i.e.  for  the  3  454  processing 
sector firms in the EU), in the medium- to longer-term, to the extent that processors rely on 
EU  catches  as  opposed  to  imports  of  raw  material  from  outside  the  EU.  Under  Option  1 
increased  availability  of  fish  would  be  expected  for  the  processing  sector,  both  from  any 
improvements  in  stocks  that  would  result  from  the  positive  environmental  impacts  of  this 
Option,  but  also  specifically  from  the  reduced  levels  of  discards  which  Option  1  would 
contribute  to  through  its  actions  related  to  the  landing  obligation.  However,  these  additions 
are not expected to be of such a magnitude as to reduce significantly the dependency of the 
EU processing sector on imports of raw materials. Furthermore, profitability gains are not to 
be  expected  either,  unless  the  increased  availability  of  local  products  and  the  preference  of 
consumers  for  such  products  would  support  using  them  as  a  market  differentiation  tool 
supporting higher prices and hence increased profit margins. 

Also potentially of considerable importance to the small scale fleet is that this fleet typically 
does not have historical data, which they would need if quotas are introduced to demonstrate 
historical record. Improving data on catches for the under the 12m fleet segment under Option 
1  would  assist  with  generating  historical  time  series  of  ‘track  record’,  and  thus  potentially 
longer-term economic benefits if catch restrictions were to be introduced at some stage in the 
future. 

Direct economic positive impacts are expected for small scale fleets thanks to the reinforced 
control  of  recreational  fishermen.  In  fact,  despite  the  ban  to  sell  catches  from  recreational 
activities,  there  are  concerns  that  this  might  not  always  be  the  case,  resulting  in  unfair 
competition for professional fishermen. 

While  it  was  not  possible  to  quantify  the  economic  benefits,  it  was  however  possible  to 
calculate the costs to ensure compliance with the landing obligation and the control of fishing 
capacity60.  Those  costs  have  been  estimated  to  be  about  7.2M€  for  public  authorities  to 
monitor the landing obligation, and 5.1M€ for businesses to comply with the new provisions 
on  monitoring  of  power  engine,  which  will  be  however  counterbalanced  by  a  reduction  in 
costs to public authorities by 4.2 M€ (a summary of the compliance costs is provided in Table 
3 in Section 7.2). 

It should also be noted that the above-mentioned compliance costs which would be incurred 
both by businesses and public administrations would be eligible for refund under the EMFF 
(see section 1.3). 

6.1.3.  Social impacts 

Under  Option  1,  the  increased  consistency  and  clarity  of  the  sanctioning  systems,  together 
with  its  robustness  is  expected  to  have  a  significant  and  positive  impact  on  the  social 
behaviour  of  fishermen  in  the  short-term  and  thereafter,  providing  support  for  a  stronger 
culture of compliance and leading to fewer infringements. Social impacts would also include 
a more consistent and equal treatment of fishing operators. 

60  Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

32 

 
                                                            
As  already  stated,  whereas  it  is  unlikely  that  significant  numbers  of  new  jobs  among 
fishermen  are  to  be  created,  further  increases  in  wages  seem  to  be  quite  likely  to  happen, 
which will result in better quality jobs and improve the attractiveness of the sector to younger 
generations. Furthermore, as regards smaller vessels, the potential economic benefits resulting 
from the allocation of fishing quotas and thus of increased fishing opportunities, would also 
result in a social positive impact. 

However, the digitisation of the Control System and the introduction of new ICT will boost 
innovation, providing new avenues for job creation and creating new opportunities for small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 

6.1.4.  Administrative burden 

The actions and amendments foreseen under Option 1 would strongly support the reduction in 
unnecessary administrative burden for the public authorities and, considering that most of the 
new costs are associated with ICT development and one-off investments, also in the long term 
for the whole EU.  

The  actions  foreseen  under  enforcement  and  data  availability,  quality  and  sharing  are 
especially prone to reduce  administrative burden and their impacts have been monetised for 
businesses, national and EU administrations, including the Commission and EFCA61. 

The  amendments  proposed  under  enforcement,  and  in  particular  the  establishment  of  the 
electronic  inspection  report  system  (currently  paper  based)  is  expected  to  decrease  the 
administrative burden for public authorities by 19M€ over a 5-year period, with an associated 
3.3M€  of  costs  due  to  ICT  investments,  for  a  total  net  decrease  of  15.7M€  over  the  same 
years. 
The digitisation of reporting for small vessels (i.e. the introduction of tracking and electronic 
reporting for vessels below 12m and the removal of exemptions from the VMS and ERS for 
the  vessels  12-15m)  are  estimated  to  reduce  the  costs  related  to  reporting  by  19.7  M€  for 
businesses and by 83.6M€ for Member States, counterbalanced by 127M€ investments in ICT 
development and equipment for vessels. 

The  modification  associated  to  the  exchange  of  information  such  as  digitisation  of  data 
systems  (i.e.  the inspection  report  system),  paving  the  way  for  a  future centralisation  at  EU 
level  of  the  now  national  databases,  is  associated  to  savings  of  about  8.5M€  over  a  5-year 
period, to which however 2.3M€ should be added for Member States and 2.0M€ for the EU as 
ICT investment. Also the measures would result in increased costs of 3.5M€ for the EU for 
ICT development and maintenance. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  as  for  the  compliance  costs  mentioned  in  section  6.2.2,  costs 
associated  to  ICT  developments  would  also  be  eligible  for  funding  under  the  EMFF,  with 
therefore a very limited real impact on businesses and administrations. 

A  summary  of  the  estimated  impacts  on  administrative  burden  for  Option  1  is  presented  in 
Table 2. 

On top of the estimated cost savings presented in Table 2, more cost savings are expected at 
European  level:  savings  would  be  mostly  attributable  to  Member  States,  resulting  from 
rationalisation of data exchange and increased interoperability of the traceability systems, and 

61  Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

33 

 
                                                            
to  the  Commission,  thanks  to  the  direct  access  to  information  data  of  the  Member  States. 
Unfortunately at this stage it was not possible to quantify them. 

Impact administrative burden Option 1 (most likely costs in M€ over a 5 year period) 

Businesses  

Administrations 

EU 

One-off* 

Recurrent 

One-off* 

Recurrent 

One-off* 

Recurrent 

Enforcement 

Reporting and tracking of 
vessels below 12m and 
vessels between 12m-15m 

Exchange of information 

Total costs 

Total Investment in ICT** 

Total recurrent cost savings 
thanks to ICT*** 

127 

-19.7 

3.3 

-19.0 

-83.6 

2.3 

-8.5 

2.0 

3.5 

7.3 

134.6 

127.3 

* One-off costs for ICT technologies are here intended as hardware investment costs and transmission 
costs. 
** Costs reimbursable to Member States under EMFF. 
*** Corresponds to annual savings of 26M€, savings that will continue beyond the 5year period. 

Table 2: Impacts administrative burden Option 1 compared to the current situation 

6.2.  OPTION 2. Amendment of the Fisheries Control System 

6.2.1.  Environmental impacts 

Option 2 includes some specific policy actions that would generate marginal, but important, 
improvements in environmental impacts, in addition to those mentioned under Option 1.  

With  regard  to  enforcement  (sanctioning  systems)  Option  2  includes  additional  measures 
compared  to  Option  1  that  would  considerably  improve  consistency  in  the  approach  to 
infringement follow-up and sanctions to address the currently uneven enforcement landscape 
across  the  Member  States.  The  requirement  to  treat  infringements  of  the  CFP  under 
administrative  law,  and  the  setting  of  common  rules  for  sanctions  would  further  increase 
compliance with the control system compared to Option 1, thus supporting additional positive 
environmental impacts on the stocks that the CFP requires to be sustainably exploited.  

With  regard  to  EFCA,  Option  2  includes  amendments  to  its  Founding  Regulation,  which 
would  further  support  the  achievement  of  the  general  objective  of  ensuring  full  compliance 
with  the  reformed  CFP.  The  clarification  of  EFCA's  objective  regarding  the  CFP  and  its 
external dimension and the extension of the geographical coverage for its inspections , would 
support positive environmental impacts by allowing EFCA to carry out inspections also in EU 
waters,  in  addition  to  international  waters,  and  resulting  in  better  control  of  Member  State 
fleets,  better  controlling  of  possible  illegal  activities  and  thus  limiting  overfishing,  with 
positive knock-on effects on fish stocks. 

The digitisation of the IUU Catch Certificate would make it harder to manipulate certificates 
and for any illegally caught fish to enter the supply chain. The improvements in traceability 
would also contribute to the EU’s international obligations and efforts to reduce IUU fishing, 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
overfishing  and  thus  contributing  to  the  general  objective  of  ensuring  compliance  with  the 
CFP.  

6.2.2.  Economic impacts 

Economic  impacts  under  Option  2  would  be  largely  consistent  with  those  under  Option  1 
because those  options are identical in  terms of  the actions  for  data (availability, quality and 
sharing) and for the control of the landing obligation. However additional economic benefits 
would  be  expected  from  the  improved  environmental  impacts  under  Option  2  and  most 
notably  from  the  additional  actions  on  enforcement,  through  the  amendment  of  the  IUU 
Regulation,  and  from  the  reinforced  role  of  EFCA,  through  the  amendment  of  its  founding 
Regulation. The strengthened enforcement system will help to ensure that sanctions better act 
as a deterrent compared to Option 1 by increasing the amounts thereof and hence the costs of 
non-compliance  for  those  with  incentives  to  cheat.  With  the  revision  of  its  founding 
Regulation,  EFCA  should  in  future  be  able  to  carry  out  inspections  with  an  extended 
geographical scope and not limited to international waters. This would allow a more effective 
control  of  fishing  activities  and  a  more  rational  use  of  Member  States  control  means. 
However, at this stage it was not possible to quantify exactly the impacts. 

Hence, Option 2 compared to Option 1 would result in an extra push towards achieving the 
economic benefits of generally fishing at sustainable levels. 

6.2.3.  Social impacts 

Social  impacts  under  Option  2  would  also  be  largely  consistent  with  those  under  Option  1 
because those  options  are identical in  terms of  the actions  for  data (availability, quality and 
sharing)  and  for  the  control  of  the  landing  obligation.  However,  additional  social  benefits 
would  flow  from  the  improved  environmental  impacts  under  Option  2  and  as  for  the 
economic  impacts  they  will  most  notably  stem  from  the  additional  actions  on  enforcement 
from the clarified role of EFCA. As reported by stakeholders, EFCA involvement in fisheries 
control is considered as paramount in supporting a level playing field, with positive effects on 
the  promotion  of  a  culture  of  compliance.  The  additional  actions  related  to  sanctioning 
systems under Option 2 would be especially beneficial in further supporting positive changes 
in the behaviour by fishermen in the short-term to operate within a culture of compliance. 

6.2.4.  Administrative burden 

The digitisation of the electronic catch certificate in the IUU Regulation is expected to reduce 
the administrative burden for public authorities by about 4M€ over a five year period62. 

As  Option  2  takes  all  the  actions  of  Option  1,  it  will  further  decrease  the  administrative 
burden estimated for the latter. Summary of the cost savings under Option 2 are provided in 
Table 3 in Section 7.2 and in detail in Table 4 of Section 8.2. 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

This  section  compares  the  different  policy  options  with  regard  to  their  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence and acceptability. It also compares them with the recommendations of 
other EU institutions and bodies. 

62  Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 
(COFFEY, 2018). It should be noted that more than 200,000 catch certificates are processed annually in the Union, 

35 

 
                                                            
The options have been compared objectively using multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and, to allow 
for a direct and easy appraisal, they have been rated according to scoring criteria. The results 
are  presented  below  in  graphs,  with  a  comparison  of  the  relative  impacts  to  the  Baseline. 
More details and information supporting the graphs, and in particular the scoring of each the 
option  for  each  criteria  and  the  contribution  of  each  action  it  is  reported  in  the  study 
'Assessment  of  the  impacts  of  the  policy  options  proposed  for  the  Amendment  of  the 
Fishery Control System' (COFFEY, 2018). 

7.1.  Effectiveness 

This sub-section looks at effectiveness, or how successful the different policy options would 
be in achieving the general and specific objectives set out in Section 4.2. 

Figure  8  below  summarizes  the  scoring  of  the  different  options  against  the  effectiveness 
criteria. As the figure shows, all three options make contributions to the general objective of 
ensuring full compliance with the reformed CFP. While Options 1 and 2 contribute to all four 
specific  objectives,  the Baseline only contributes to three of the four specific objectives. Of 
more  importance  however  are  the  relative  scores  for  the  three  options.  The  Baseline  brings 
about only very small contributions in achieving the objectives, while Option 1 and 2 bring 
about  large  and  very  large  improvements  respectively.  The  difference  in  effectiveness 
between Option 1 and the Baseline is greater than the difference between Option 2 and 1, due 
largely  to  the  fact  that  most  regulatory  amendments  to  the  Baseline  situation  are  contained 
within Option 1. Overall, Option 2 out-performs both the Baseline and Options 1, as it better 
supports all specific objectives and the general objective, with the exception of the objective 
to improve fisheries data quality, which is equally supported by Options 1 and 2. In particular 
the main strength of Option 2 is the contribution to achievement of the specific objective to 
remove obstacles that  hinder equitable treatment of operators thanks to  the clarification and 
holistic approach of the enforcement both in IUU and Control Regulation. 

Compliance with CFP and fulfillment of its
objectives

Remove obstacles that hinder equitable treatment
of operators

Simplify and reduce unnecessary administrative
burden

Improve fisheries data

Bridge the gap with the CFP

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

Figure 8: Effectiveness of Baseline, Options 1 and 2 (COFFEY 2018). 

36 

 
 
 
7.2.  Efficiency  

Efficiency  evaluates  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  different  options  in  delivering  the 
objectives. 

While  it  is  not  possible  to  quantify  the  benefits  for  the  Baseline,  Options  1  and  2  and  to 
provide  a  direct  quantitative  comparison  at  the  aggregated  policy  level,  the  extent  of 
beneficial impacts from the amendments in the five main policy areas can be scored against a 
range  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  indicators,  to  provide  a  quantitative  basis  for  the 
comparison  of  the  options  for  their  benefits/impacts.  This  scoring  is  summarised  below  in 
Figure 9. The figure shows that the benefits across the five policy areas (which link strongly 
with  the  specific  objectives)  are  very  limited  for  the  Baseline,  vary  for  Option  1  but  are 
moderate on average, while Option 2 brings about very significant improvements in all five 
individual policy areas and on average across the policy areas as a whole. 

4,5

4

3,5

3

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Enforcement Data availability,

quality and
sharing

Control of the
landing
obligation

Increased
synergies with
other policies

EFCA

Figure 9: Comparison of benefits in the five main policy areas under the Baseline, Options 1, and 2 (COFFEY 
2018). 

Under  the  Baseline  both  fishing  operators  and  Member  States  would  incur  significant 
administrative  costs  from  fully  enforcing  the  existing  regulatory  framework.  Those  costs 
mainly come from the time that would have to be spent to handle paper reporting for small 
vessels.  The  European Commission  would  also  incur  costs  over  the same  period  for  further 
ICT  development.  Under  The  Baseline  there  would  also  be  a  significant  compliance  cost 
related to the enforcement of the landing obligation, although it cannot be monetised.  

Under Option 1 the most likely estimates of annual administrative burden would be costs to 
private  sector  commercial  fishermen,  as  all  vessels  under  12m  would  have  to  report. 
However,  this  cost  would  be  mitigated  by  the  use  of  efficient  and  low-cost  electronic 
reporting  applications  and  by  annual  cost  savings  for  public  authorities,  as  a  result  of  the 

37 

 
 
digitisation of reporting obligations. Data management and sharing would also be a cost at EU 
level.  

Other  annual  costs  in  the  form  of  ‘compliance’  costs  would  be  for  commercial  fishermen 
related  to  the  investment  for  the  continuous  recording  of  engine  power  for  monitoring  the 
fishing capacity and for Member States to invest in CCTV/REM equipment for the control of 
the landing obligations. At the same time, Member States would save from the reduction of 
engine verifications to monitor fishing capacity. There would also be additional savings under 
Option 1 from the digitisation of traceability documents, but these cannot be monetised. 

The total costs for the various options are reported in Table 3. It should be noted that since the 
amendments  proposed  in  Option  1  and  2  will modify  the  current  legislative  framework,  the 
costs  reported  in  the  Table  3  for  Option  1  and  2  are  alternative  to  those  assessed  for  the 
Baseline. 

Baseline 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2  

B*  A**  EU  Tot 

B* 

A** 

E
U 

Tot 

B* 

A**  EU  Tot 

Administrative 
burden 
Enforcement 
Reporting and 
tracking <12m 
vessels 
Data 
management 
and sharing at 
EU level 
IUU e-CC 
Total 
Administrative 
burden 
Compliance 
costs 
Control of the 
landing 
obligation 
Monitoring 
fishing capacity 
Total 
Compliance 
costs 
Total costs 
* B= Businesses 
** A=Administrations 

90,3  71,0 

-15,7 

-15,7 

-15,7 

-15,7 

161,3  107,3 

-83,6 

23,7 

107,3 

-83,6 

23,7 

4,6 

2,0 

6,6 

-6,2  5,5 

-0,7 

-6,2 

5,0 

-0,7 

90,3  75,6  2,0  167,9  107,3  -105,6  5,0 

-4,0 

-4,0 

7,2 

107,3  -109,5  5,5 

3,3 

7,2 

7,2 

7,2 

5,1 

-4,2 

0,8 

5,1 

-4,2 

5,1 

2,9 

8,0 

5,1 

2,9 

7,2 

0,8 

8,0 

90,3  75,6  2,0  167,9  112,4  -102,6  5,5  15,3 

112,4  -106,6  5,5  11,3 

Table 3:  Summary table of monetised administrative burden and other costs (M€) for the Baseline, Options 1 

and 2 over 5 years respect to the current situation (rounded figures, COFFEY 2018). 

38 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While a comparison  cannot  be made in  monetary terms to  allow for a cost-benefit analysis, 
when  taken  ‘in  the  round’  the  comparison  of  benefits  versus  costs  for  the  Baseline  suggest 
that benefits would outweigh the increases in costs, although they would be limited. For both 
Options  1  and  2,  costs  would  be  ‘proportionate’  to  the  benefits  achieved  (especially 
considering  cost  savings)  and  cost-effective,  with  considerable  benefits  outweighing  the 
relatively modest changes  in costs. In  addition, there would be minimal costs on businesses 
which would be eligible for support under EMFF (see section 1.3), while the same businesses 
would benefit in environmental, economic and social terms. 

Member  States'  public  authorities  would  also  benefit  from  cost  savings  under  this  Option 
through  simplification  and  inter-operability.  The  case  studies  provided  in  the  COFFEY 
study63  also  suggest  that  the  benefits  of  an  improved  Fisheries  Control  System  can 
significantly outweigh costs, more than doubling benefit/cost ratios. 

Under Option 2 the benefits would be marginally increased over those in Option 1, with costs 
decreased, indicating increased efficiency (cost-effectiveness) of Option 2 over Option 1. 

On the top of the above analysis it is also worth considering the results of the study carried 
out  in  200064,  showing  that  the  sum  of  benefits  of  illegal  activities  is  on  average  8  times 
greater than the costs of deployment of control means. 

Based on all the above considerations, Figure 10 below compares the Baseline, Options 1, and 
2 for the efficiency criterion. 

Efficiency

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 10: Comparison of the efficiency for the Baseline, Options 1, and 2. 

7.3.  Coherence 

The  assessment  of  coherence  involves  looking  at  a  how  well  or  not  different  actions  work 
together. Figure 11 below shows how the options compare for their coherence with: 

1.  The Common Fisheries Policy; 

2.  Relevant  horizontal  legislation:  IUU  Regulation,  EFCA  Founding  Regulation,  CMO 

Regulation, Food Law; 

63   Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the Fishery Control System 

(COFFEY, 2018). 

64   Cost benefit comparison of different control strategies (Oceanic Development, 2000) 

39 

 
 
 
                                                            
3.  Overarching EU policies, as enshrined in  environmental  legislation,  the  digital  Single 
Market Strategy, the Plastic Strategy, the Ocean Governance agenda and the Strategic 
partnership with the EU's outermost regions. 

With CFP

With horizontal legislation

With overarching EU policy

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 11: Comparison of the Baseline, Options 1, and 2 respect to the criterion coherence (COFFEY 2018) 

The  Baseline  would  not  bring  any  improvements  in  coherence,  as  this  option  does  not 
anticipate any regulatory amendments, and the gap with the reformed CFP and other policies 
will remain. Both Options 1 and 2 support improved coherence, but Option 2 performs better 
than  Option  1  mainly  thanks  to  the  EFCA  alignment  with  the  CFP  and  to  the  greater 
coherence with other horizontal legislation – not surprisingly given that this option includes 
amendments to two other pieces of horizontal legislation, in addition to the amendments to the 
Control Regulation under both options. 

The  support  to  other  policies  will  be  specifically  achieved  through  digitisation  (support  to 
Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy), through a simplified and more effective and digitised 
system  for  the  reporting  of  lost  fishing  gear  (support  to  the  Plastic  Strategy),  through  the 
electronic catch certificate, an improved tools to fight against illegal fishing (support to Ocean 
Governance) as well the through improved and modern control strategies (support to strategic 
partnership with the EU's outermost regions).  

7.4.  Acceptability 

The  policy  options  are  here  compared  for  their  acceptability,  both  in  terms  of  stakeholders' 
support and proportionality. 

7.4.1.  Stakeholders' view 

The  result  of  stakeholders'  view  on  the  three  policy  options  is  presented  in  Figure  12.  All 
stakeholders,  including  the  Member  States,  the  Advisory  Councils65,  the  fishing  sector,  the 

65  See Annex 8 for a description of the Advisory Councils.  

40 

 
 
  
                                                            
processing  sectors  and  NGOs  stated  that  a  revision  of  the  current  legislative  framework  is 
necessary. When asked for the preference among the 3 policy options, most of them agreed 
that an amendment of the Fisheries Control System, encompassing the revision of the Control 
Regulation,  of  the  IUU  Regulation  (regarding  the  sanctioning  system  and  IUU  catch 
certificate only) and of the EFCA Regulation (Option 2) was preferable to the amendment of 
solely  the  Control  Regulation  (Option  1).  The  stakeholders'  specific  views  on  each  of  the 
proposed actions for the five different thematic areas are reported in Annex 2. 

2% 

98% 

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 12: Stakeholder preference for the Baseline, Options 1 and 2. 

7.4.2.  Proportionality  

The options have also been analysed for their proportionality. Of particular importance is the 
proportionality  under  both  Options  1  and  2  including  amendments  related  to  reporting  of 
catches  from  vessels  below  12m  and  from  the  recreational  sector.  It  should  be  noted  that 
actions not considered proportionate were early discarded (see Section 5.2) 

Both  Options  1  and  2  may  be  considered  proportional  in  terms  of  the  specific  actions  they 
include when considering that one of the specific objectives of the amendments is to improve 
the quality of fisheries data. The current poor quality and partial nature of data from both the 
below  12m  fleet  segments  and  recreational  fisheries,  which  is  required  for  robust  scientific 
assessment  of  the  status  of  stocks,  seriously  compromises  not  just  the  achievement  of  the 
specific objective to improve the quality of fisheries data, but also of the CFP sustainability 
objectives more generally.  

Both Options 1 and 2 also appear proportional in terms of addressing aspects that the current 
system  has  not  proven  to  be  able  to  achieve  to  date.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  the 
creation  of  a  strong  culture  of  compliance  through  new  and  more  effective  sanctioning 
systems  and  new  data  exchange  arrangements  which  would  address  the  failure to  share  and 
provide access to key control-related data.  

Content and actions of Options 1 and 2 would serve to address all current problems identified, 
without going beyond the issues of the problem statement. 

41 

 
 
 
 
7.5.  Recommendations of other EU institutions and bodies 

This  criterion  to  compare  options  goes  beyond  those  suggested  in  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines, which only require comparison in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence. 

The 3 options are here compared for the extent to which they act on the recommendations and 
suggestions made by: 

  The European Court of Auditors (ECA); 

  The European Commission REFIT Platform opinion; 

  The European Parliament; 

  The EFCA Administrative Board; and 

  Council of the European Union in its response to the finding of the ECA; 

A detailed list of the various recommendations is provided in Annex 9. 

Figure 13 summarizes the scoring of the different options in terms of the criterion of how well 
they serve to act on those recommendations. As the figure shows, the Baseline scores low, as 
it does not address many recommendations. Both Options 1 and 2 perform well in acting on 
the  recommendations  made.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  while  the  scoring  is  not  weighted, 
acting  on  the  ECA  recommendations  is  considered  essential,  given  their  "semi-binding" 
nature, and both Options 1 and 2 serve to comply with the ECA recommendations. However 
Option 2 out-performs Option 1 quite significantly, largely due to the failure of Option 1 to 
address the recommendations of the EFCA Administrative Board.  

ECA recommendations are acted on

REFIT findings acted on

Parliament recommendations are acted on

Recommendations of the Council of the European
Union acted on

EFCA Administrative Board recommendations
acted on

Baseline

Option 1

0,00
Option 2

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

Figure 13: Comparison of action on the recommendations of EU institutions in the Baseline, Options 1, and 2 
(COFFEY 2018) 

42 

 
 
 
 
8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1.  General overview  

A summary of the average scores presented in the previous section is presented in Figure 14. 
The  fully  enforced  baseline  performs  poorly  against  the  current  situation  with  only  limited 
improvements in effectiveness and efficiency, virtually no action on recommendations by EU 
institutions, and no increased coherence because of the failure to amend the current regulatory 
framework. Both Options 1 and 2 perform well against the Baseline, showing improvements 
for all the five criteria.  

Effectiveness

Coherence

Acceptability

Efficiency

Recommendations acted on

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

Baseline

Option 1

Option 2

Figure 14: Comparison of scores across all criteria in the multi-criteria analysis. 

Option  2  shows  markedly  better  performance  overall  compared  to  Option  1,  across  all  five 
criteria,  and  is  therefore  chosen  as  the  preferred  option.  Taking  into  account  all  the 
evidences  collected  and  analysed  through  the  Impact  Assessment  process,  Option  2  would 
best: 

  Ensure coherence with the reformed CFP; 

  Modernise and ensure a full compliant future-proof control system; 

  Simplify the legislative framework and decrease unnecessary administrative burden; 

 

Increase the culture of compliance with the CFP; 

  Ensure equal treatment of operators; 

 

 

Improve quality, exchange and sharing of fisheries data; 

Improve data for stock assessment; 

43 

 
 
 
 

 

Increase synergies with other policies; 

Increase competitiveness of the European industry; 

  More than double each euro invested in control as revenue for the EU economy; 

 

Increase creation of new jobs in ICT; 

  Boost investments in new technologies while saving 157M€ over a five year period 

compared to full enforcement of the current system (Baseline); 

  Result in faster improvement of the status of the stocks and thus in increased 

profitability of the vessels concerned and the wages of fishermen. 

8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

The  preferred  Option  (Option  2)  is  estimated  to  simplify  and  drastically  reduce  the 
unnecessary administrative burden of the current system. An overview of the costs savings is 
reported in Table 4 for the different actions proposed in the five thematic areas. It should be 
noted  that  while  some  of  the  savings  could  be  monetised,  some  others  have  been  identified 
but it was not possible to quantify them.  

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option(s) 

Description 

Harmonised enforcement 
rules; electronic inspection 
reports; centralised database 
of inspection reports; 
improved exchange of data 
on infringements  

Reporting and tracking of 
vessels below 12m and 
vessels between 12m-15m 

Amount over 5 
years 

19 M€ () 
15,7 M€ () 

103.3 M€ () 
137,6 M€ () 

Exchange of information: 
centralisation of databases 

8.5 M€ () 
7,3 M€ () 

IUU electronic certificate 

4 M€() 
4 M€ () 

44 

Comments 

Net cost savings thanks to reduction in 
administrative burden for public 
authorities. However,3.3M€ would be 
required as investment in ICT systems 
(hardware and software). 

Total net cost savings for operators and 
public authorities thanks to decrease in 
administrative burden resulting from 
digitisation. However, 127M€ would be 
required as ICT investment (see Table 1 
section 6.2.4) 

Net cost savings for public authorities 
thanks to digitisation and centralisation of 
databases. However, 2.3 M€ would be 
required for Member States and 2 M€ for 
the Commission as ICT investment. Also 
the measures would result in increased 
costs of 3.5M€ for the Commission for 
ICT development and maintenance.  

Net cost savings for public authorities 
thanks to digitisation and consequent 
reduction in administrative burden. The 
ICT system is already being developed by 

 
 
Traceability  

Data management and 
sharing at EU level  

Reduction and 
simplification of reporting 
obligations 

- 

- 

- 

the Commission which bears the costs of 
it. 

Cost savings are expected for public 
authorities thanks to the increased 
interoperability of the ICT solutions, 
however at this stage it was not possible to 
quantify them.  

Cost savings are expected for Member 
States and the Commission thanks to the 
rationalisation of data exchange. More 
savings are also estimated for the 
Commission thanks to the direct access to 
information data of the Member States, 
but at this stage it was not possible to 
quantify them. 

Cost savings are expected for operators 
and public authorities66 thanks to 
reduction and streamlining of reporting, 
but at this stage it was not possible to 
quantify them.  

Table 4: REFIT cost savings of the preferred Option, respect to the current situation (), respect to the Baseline 
(). 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

To  conclude  the  impact  assessment  process,  this  section  identifies  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation  arrangements  needed  to  track  the  intended  results  of  this  initiative.  In 
addition, a set of core indicators has been defined for the preferred option, the multi-annual 
plan. 

9.1.  Monitoring 

Table 5 identifies for the specific objectives of the initiative, as presented in section 4, their 
operational objectives and the corresponding monitoring indicators and their expected trends 
in the medium and long term as criteria for success of the initiative. 

Monitoring of the impacts of the control system is and will continue to be part of the routine 
work performed by Member States, by the Commission and by EFCA.  

As regards sanctions, monitoring already takes place in the Member States and by EFCA in 
the context of common coordination activities carried out by the Agency. In future, with the 
creation  of a  register  of  serious  infringements  at  EU  level  and  the  possibility  to  have  direct 
access to inspection reports, data collection, monitoring of relevant indicators will be easier, 
more effective and directly accessible to the Commission as well. This will also be relevant 
for data collection and monitoring of operational objectives 5 and 6. 

66 Those savings are mostly associated with changes (deletion or amendments) of reporting or publication obligations 
obligation foreseen for Member States and the Commission (e.g. Art 16, Art 25, Art 28, Art 34, Art 35.3 Art 48.3) 

45 

 
                                                            
For  the  exchange  of  data  and  number  of  publications  (operational  objectives  2  and  3),  data 
collection and monitoring is guaranteed by the data management unit with DG MARE, which 
regularly oversees the implementation of IT and data systems by Member States also through 
ad-hoc expert meetings with Member States.  

Catch  data  are  regularly  submitted  by  Member  States  to  the  Commission  (monthly  or 
quarterly,  depending  on  the  stocks).  This  will  allow  for  the  monitoring  of  operational 
objective 4. 

9.1.  Evaluation 

A  continued  evaluation  will  be  ensured  through  the  use  of  an  integrated  set  of  tools  and 
actions: 

1. Verifications, autonomous inspections and audits: The Control Regulation (Articles 96-
102)  empowers  the  Commission  to  control  and  evaluate  the  application  of  the  rules  of  the 
CFP  by  the  Member  States  by  means  of  examination  of  information  and  documents,  by 
conducting  verifications,  inspections  and  audits  and  by  following-up  on  those.  This  activity 
currently encompasses a yearly average of 40 missions in all Member States concerned. 

2.  Expert/Steering  groups:  Fisheries  control  and  compliance  expert  groups  are  routinely 
organised by the Commission with all Member States and EFCA (one average once/month) to 
review the state of play with  implementation,  to evaluate data, to  discuss  best-practices and 
problems and to identify solutions and common ways forward. Furthermore, EFCA regularly 
organises steering groups at regional and EU level with Member States to assess the level of 
implementation  of  specific  control  programmes.  Those  groups  are  also  attended  by  the 
Commission and will continue to be operational. 

3. Five-year evaluations: The Control Regulation provides that the Commission shall assess 
the  implementation  of  the  Control  Regulation  every  5  years,  based  on  reports  submitted  by 
Member States. In addition, the EFCA founding regulation requires a 5-year evaluation of the 
Agency's activities, based on an external independent assessment. The monitoring indicators 
and  their  evolution  in  the  medium  and  long  term  will  be  assessed  on  the  occasion  of  those 
evaluations  and  in  particular  in  the  context  of  the  5-years  evaluations  of  the  Control 
Regulation (medium and long term evolution of indicators). 

46 

 
 
Specific objectives 

Remove obstacles for a 
better culture of 
compliance and for 
equitable treatment of 
operators 

Simplify legislative 
framework and reduce 
unnecessary 
administrative burden 

Improve availability, 
reliability and 
completeness of 
fisheries data and 
information 
Bridge the gaps with 
the CFP and with other 
EU policies 

Operational 
objectives 

1. Sanctions are 
deterrent enough in all 
MS  

2. Structures are in 
place for easy data 
exchange 
3 Reduction in the No 
of publications on the 
series C 
4. All vessels report 
their catches 
(electronically) 

5. The landing 
obligation is 
effectively enforced 
6. MS can effectively 
control marine 
protected areas 

Monitoring indicators 

  N°  infringements  and  serious  infringements/N° 

of inspections and N° of vessels (yearly) 

  Average fine by type of infringement (yearly) 

  Average 

time 

for 

the 

allocation 

of 

points/assignment of penalties (yearly) 

  N° of interoperable databases/systems (yearly) 

  N° publications on the series C, linked to the 

Control Regulation (yearly) 

  Catch data by fish stock by sea-basin (monthly) 

  Number  of  stocks  with  sufficient  fisheries  data 
to support scientific advice in the Mediterranean  

  N° infringements prosecuted on breaches to the 

landing obligation (yearly) 

  N° infringements detected for fishing activities 

in MPAs (yearly) 

Table 5: Monitoring indicators of the preferred option and their expected trends.  

Expected trends of 
indicators67 

3-5 y 
 

5-10 y 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 /  

 /  

67 The expected trends are presented in the medium and long term, i.e. 3-5 years and 5-10 years after the full implementation of the new Fisheries Control System. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 1: Procedural information 

10.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) led the preparation 
of  this  initiative  and  the  work  on  the  impact  assessment.  Other  Commission  departments 
involved  are:  DG  Environment  (DG  ENV),  DG  Health  and  Food  safety  (DG  SANTE),  DG 
Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), the Legal Services (DG LS) and the Secretariat-General 
(DG SG).  

EFCA, EMSA and FRONTEX were also consulted in the process and provided their input on 
the proposal (see Annex 2 on Stakeholder Consultation). 

The proposal for the revision of the Fisheries Control System is provided for in the 'Agenda 
Planning' (2017/MARE/1111) and in the DG MARE's 2017 Management Plan. 

11.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The impact assessment has progressed in several steps since the publication of the results of 
the  Commission  REFIT  evaluation  in  April  2017,  the  publication  of  other  EU  Institution's 
opinions (ECA, EP, Council) and EFCA Administrative Board Recommendations.  

The  discussions  led in  the  European  Institutions  concluded  that  the  current  fisheries  control 
system is not fit for purpose and, upon agreement of the priority areas to be tackled, in June 
2017 its revision was formally launched.  

Since then, numerous meetings have been organised to collect as many views as possible from 
the various stakeholders (see Annex 2 for more details).  

The  steering  group  that  oversaw  the  REFIT  evaluation,  enlarged  to  represent  some  more 
Commission Services, followed the process of this initiative as well, providing continuity and 
coherence with the previous exercise.  

The  Impact  Assessment  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (IA-ISSG)  was  composed  of  relevant 
Commission  departments  (DG  MARE,  DG  ENV,  DG  SANTE,  DG  MOVE,  the  Legal 
Services  and  the  Secretariat-General).  DG  LS  and  DG  MOVE  were  added  to  the  original 
steering  group  of  the  REFIT  evaluation  to  ensure  that  the  new  proposal  would  be  legally 
sound and robust, and coherent with maritime policy and safety. 

The  IA-ISSG  met  five  times  (27  May,  14  July,  11  September,  10  November,  and  13 
December 2017) and was consulted various times in writing. In between these consultations, 
informal contacts were held with the members of the steering group to get input and feedback 
on:  

- the draft inception impact assessment;  
- the stakeholders consultation;  
- concrete aspects of the impact assessment such as defining the problem, conceiving 
the policy options and the technical action to solve the identified shortcomings;  
- the draft impact assessment report.  

In addition, in January 2017 DG MARE set up a working group to internally coordinate the 
process and in September 2017 set up ten specific project teams to deal with specific issues of 

48 

 
the  control  (enforcement,  monitoring  of  vessels  below  12m,  recreational  fisheries,  post-
landing  activities,  engine  power,  data  management,  landing  obligation,  environment, 
traceability,  IUU,  EFCA).  The  team  comprises  DG  MARE  inspectors,  staff  working  in  the 
various units with direct or indirect interests in control68. The group has made good progress 
on topics such as better defining the nature of the problem, choosing the best technical actions 
to tackle them, and determining what indicators to use in the modelling of impacts. 

12.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The  draft  impact  assessment  report  was  submitted  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  on  8 
January  2018  for  quality  review.  The  Board  analysed  the  draft  report  and  issued  a  positive 
Opinion accompanied with its recommendations for improvement on 9 February 201769. 

An overview of the Board's recommendations and the changes made compared to the earlier 
draft is provided below: 

Board's main consideration and 
recommendations (part B) 

Changes made compared to the earlier draft 

(B.1)  The  report  does  not  present  sufficiently  the 
links  between  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy, 
control system and other policies. 

The  relationship  between  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy, the control system and other policies has been 
further explained in Chapter 1 [see box C.1]. 

The  relationship  between  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policies, conservation measures and the FCS has been 
further clarified in Section 1.1. 

In  order  to  clarify  the  relationship  with  other  EU 
policies    new  sub  sections  has  been  added  in  Section 
1.4 [see box C.1]. 

The contributions of the baseline, policy options 1 and 
2  as  support  of  other  EU  policies  is  presented  with 
more detail in Section 7.3. 

(B.2)  The  baseline  does  not  assume 
full 
enforcement  of  existing  policies  as  it  should  be 
under a "no policy change" scenario. 

Old  Option  1,  foreseeing  full  enforcement  of  the 
current system has been merged with the baseline, and 
presented in Section 5.1. 

(B.3)  Several  important  elements  of  the  problems 
are  not  sufficiently  clear.  The  report  does  not 
sufficiently  explain  relevant  trade-offs  with  regard 
to social and environmental impacts. 

Chapter 2 on the problem definition has been revised, 
better  explaining  the  links  and  issues  with  other  EU 
policies recently adopted [see box C.2]. 

Trade-offs  with  regards  to  social  and  environmental 
impacts has been further elaborated in Chapter 6. 

68  In  particular  the  following  units  were  represented  and  actively  contributed:  Unit  A3:  Sea  basin  strategies,  Maritime 
Regional Cooperation and Maritime Security; Unit A4: Economic Analysis, Markets and Impact Assessment; Unit B3: 
Trade  Negotiations  and  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements;  Unit  B4:  Illegal,  Unreported  and  Unregulated 
Fisheries Policy;  Unit  C1:  Fisheries Management  Atlantic,  North  Sea  and  Baltic;  Unit  C3:  Scientific  Advice  and  Data 
Collection; Unit  C4:  Data  Management;  Unit  D1:  Fisheries  Management  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea;  Unit  D3:  CFP 
and Structural Support - Policy Development and Coordination; Unit D4: Fisheries Control and Inspections; Unit E3 HR 
and IT; Unit E4: Legal Affairs. 

69   The Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board will be published with the impact assessment report and the Commission 

proposal in the online Register of Commission documents (available here). 

49 

 
 
 
                                                            
Board's further consideration and 
recommendations for improvement (part C) 

Changes made compared to the earlier draft 

(C.1) The context of the initiative could be 
improved by adding information about the Common 
Fisheries Policy and how it links to the fisheries 
control system in terms of policy objectives and in 
practice. Also other initiatives could be more clearly 
linked, such as the ones mentioned in the introduction 
– Joint Communication on Ocean Governance, 
European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, 
Digital Single Market strategy and the Communication 
regarding outermost regions. It would be useful to 
clarify the scope after the presentation of the context 
by adding a figure that summarises how the system as 
a whole works and where there are problems 

(2) The problem definition and problem drivers 
could be better presented. The report might add 
more information about derivative problems, for 
example overfishing due to lack of enforcement of the 
landing obligation. Illustrative examples might also be 
useful. The report should reflect relevant regional 
considerations, e.g. on overfishing problems and 
differences in fishing fleet composition.  

More information on the CFP and its relationship with 
conservation measures and the FCS has been added in 
Section 1.1. Figure 1 has been also added to clarify 
policy objectives and scope. 

In order to clarify the relationship of the FCS with 
other EU policies recently adopted  new sections, 
providing an overview of those policies, has been 
added in Section 1.4 (i.e. sections '1.4.3 Digital Single 
Market Strategy', '1.4.4 International Ocean 
Governance Agenda', 1.4.5 Strategic partnership with 
the EU's outermost regions). Clarification of the links 
with the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular 
Economy has been added in the section 1.4.1 EU 
environmental legislation. 

Figure 2 in Section 1.4 has been added to clarify the 
links between those recently adopted EU policies 
versus the FCS and relevant issues. 

The problem definition has been clarified in Section 
2.1 better highlighting the links with other EU 
policies. 

Issues or possible contribution of the FSC in 
supporting the achievement of other EU policies' 
objectives have been further explained in Section 2.2. 
In particular links with the European Strategy for 
Plastics in a Circular Economy, the Digital Single 
Market strategy and the Joint Communication on 
Ocean Governance, are presented in Section 2.2.1. 

More details about the landing obligation have been 
added in Section 2.2.1, with Table 1 proving an 
overview of stocks covered by the landing obligation. 

Illustrative example to reflect regional considerations 
e.g. overfishing and difference in fleet composition 
have been added in sub-section 2.2.3. 

(3) The presentation of the baseline scenario should 
follow the Better Regulation Guidelines. The 
baseline should reflect a best projection of how things 
will evolve with no policy change. It should take into 
account how already decided or ongoing policy 
measures will be enforced. Option 1 should also be 
reconsidered in line with the new presentation of the 
baseline. Options 2 and 3 could also add sub-options 
to better address trade-offs of different policy choices 
across multiple objectives. The report could provide 
more detail on how the amendment of the EFCA 
founding Regulation and the IUU Regulation would 
improve enforcement in the seas with particular 
overfishing risks  

The baseline has been revised in Section 5.1 
presenting in detail the projections of how things will 
evolve with no policy change. 

Various sub-options conceived under the two policy 
options proposed are presented and explained in 
Section 5.2. 

In the impact assessment only those sub-options prone 
to achieve the set objectives with minimal 
administrative burden and that found support from the 
majority of stakeholders were fully investigated. 
These sub-options are presented in detail in Annex 5. 

A list of the sub-options discarded and related 
motivations are presented in Annex 6. 

(4) Impacts could be further explored and 
explained. The intended positive impacts of the 
fisheries control system is to contribute to the general 

The impacts of control measures on healthy fish stocks 
and ecosystem, and a profitable industry have been 
further explained in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.  

50 

 
 
objective of the Common Fisheries Policy; healthy 
fish stocks and ecosystem, and a profitable industry. 
To provide more coherent and complete picture, the 
report should more rigorously elaborate on the 
environmental and social impacts of the (preferred) 
options.  

(5) Stakeholder views about various measures 
could be better reflected. This would help to indicate 
where changes may prove disruptive or otherwise 
relatively hard to implement.  

(6) The report could more clearly specify 
operational criteria for success, and indicate how 
data for indicators would be collected and presented,  

Environmental impacts attributable in particular to 
strengthen control and monitoring of small scale 
fisheries and of the landing obligation have been 
further explained in Section 6.1.1. Also the 
environmental impacts related to the amendments of 
EFCA Founding Regulation have been further 
elaborated. 

The economic impacts related to amendments of 
EFCA Founding Regulation have been further 
clarified in Section 6.2.2 

Stakeholders' views on measures that may prove 
disruptive or relatively hard to implement have been 
summarised in Table 6 and further explained 
throughout Annex 2, providing links with the 
discarded sub-options listed in Annex 6. 

Annex 10 with a list of stakeholders who provided a 
written contribution has been added. 

Further information on monitoring and evaluation of 
impacts of the preferred options (criteria, indicators 
and collection of information) has been provided in 
Section 9. Operational criteria for success and 
expected trends have been defined and presented in 
Table 5. 

13.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evidence supporting the problem definition reported in this impact assessment is provided 
in the documents published by the European Institutions following evaluations, studies, audit 
and surveys of the Fisheries Control System and in particular the  

  Commission REFIT evaluation70; 
  The Commission REFIT Platform71; 
  The special report of the Court of Auditors72; 
  The Council conclusions on Court of Auditors report73; 
  The Resolution by the European Parliament74; 
  The  EFCA  Administrative  Board  recommendation75,  following  the  results  of  its  five 

years external evaluation76. 

Additional material was collected from technical reports published by regional expert groups 
(e.g. North Western Waters, PEASCAMED) and Advisory Councils. 

70  COM(2017) 192 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:192:FIN 
71  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xiv3acontrol_of_eu_fisheries.pdf  
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41459 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13323-2017-INIT/en/pdf 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0407+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 
https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%20Evaluation%20-%20Issuing%20of%20Recommendations.pdf 
https://efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Five-Year%20Independent%20External%20Evaluation%20Report%202017.pdf 

51 

 
 
                                                            
The results of the Capgemini Study carried out in the frame of the REFIT evaluation fed into 
this  Impact  Assessment  providing  extensive  data  on  status  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Control Regulation and detail analysis of its impacts77,78. 

Further data on the status of implementation of the Control Regulation, and its contribution on 
the reaching CFP objectives, supporting management and conservation measures came from 
several studies and reports published by: 

 

the European Parliament, and in particular: 

-  Research for PECH Committee – Marine recreational and semi-subsistence fishing 

– its value and its impact on fish stocks (2017)79 

-  Fisheries control and enforcement (2017)80 
-  Research for PECH Committee - Small-scale Fisheries and “Blue Growth” in the 

EU (2017)81 

-  Research for PECH Committee – The discard ban and its impact on the maximum 

sustainable yield objective on fisheries (2016)82 

-  Research  for  PECH  Committee  –  Feasibility  of  measuring  socio-economic  and 
environmental  impacts  of  recreational  and  semi-subsistence  fisheries  in  the  EU 
(2016)83 

-  Research  for  PECH  Committee  –  Small-scale  fisheries  markets:  value  chain, 

promotion and labelling (2016)84 

-  Research for PECH Committee – Social and economic impact of the penalty point 

system (2016)85 

-  How to make fisheries controls in Europe uniform (2016)86 
-  The landing obligation and its implications on the control of fisheries (2015)87 
-  Small-scale fisheries and the zero discard target (2015)88 
-  Le  contrôle  de  la  pêche  européenne:  une  vue  d'ensemble  –  ANALYSE 

APPROFONDIE (2015)89 

-  The obligation to land all catches – Consequences for the Mediterranean. In-depth 

analysis (2014)90 

-  The  CFP-infringement  procedures  and  imposed  sanctions  throughout  the  EU 

(2014)91 

-  Data-deficient fisheries in EU waters (2013)92 

77  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. 

78  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. 

79   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601996/IPOL_STU(2017)601996_EN.pdf 
80   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_3.3.3.pdf 
81   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/573450/IPOL_STU(2017)573450_EN.pdf 
82   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/573440/IPOL_STU(2016)573440_EN.pdf 
83   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/573457/IPOL_STU(2016)573457_EN.pdf 
84   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/573443/IPOL_STU(2016)573443_EN.pdf 
85   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/573413/IPOL_STU%282016%29573413_EN.pdf 
86   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2016-

0234+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN 

87   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563381/IPOL_STU(2015)563381_EN.pdf 
88   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540360/IPOL_STU(2015)540360_EN.pdf 
89   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/568321/EPRS_IDA(2015)568321_FR.pdf 
90   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2014/529055/IPOL-PECH_NT(2014)529055_EN.pdf 
91   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2014/514003/IPOL-PECH_NT(2014)514003_EN.pdf 

52 

 
 
                                                            
-  The  small-scale  coastal  fleet  in  the  reform  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 

(2012)93 

-  Characteristics of small-scale coastal fisheries in Europe (2011)94 

  NGOs, and in particular:  

-  Client Earth – Slipping through the net - The control and enforcement of fisheries 
in France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the UK (England) (2017)95 

-  Oceana – Fish Stories: Success and Value in Seafood Traceability (2016)96 
-  Client Earth – Slipping through the net - The control and enforcement of fisheries 

in England, France, Ireland and Poland (2016)97 

-  Coalition: Environmental Justice Foundation, Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts 
and  WWF  –  The  EU  IUU  Regulation  -  Building  on  success  EU  progress  in  the 
global fight against illegal fishing (2016)98 

-  WWF – Traceability principles for wild-caught fish products (2015)99 
-  Our  Fish  –  Thrown  away:  how  illegal  discarding  in  the  Baltic  sea  is  failing  EU 

fisheries and citizens (2017)100 

External expertise was used as support for this Impact Assessment for assessing the impacts 
of  the  policy  options  proposed  and  their  comparison.  The  request  for  service  was  issued  in 
September  2017  and  COFFEY  was  selected  for  carrying  out  the  work.  The  contract  was 
signed in October 2017. The consultant was provided with the conceived policy options and 
the action and technical solutions proposed to solve the identified shortcomings. Tasks of the 
study  were  to  1)  assess  the  environmental,  economic,  social  impacts  of  the  policy  options, 
changes in administrative burden, and simplification benefits; 2) compare the option in terms 
of efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and recommendations of relevant Institutions. 

To  get  feedback  on  the  initiative  DG  MARE  directly  and  extensively  engaged  in  targeted 
stakeholder consultations (see Annex 2 Stakeholder Consultation). Stakeholders' opinion and 
feedback from experts and Member States has been taken into consideration in the choice of 
the policy options (see Section 5.3 and Annex 6 on discarded options) and in the development 
of actions aimed at solving the identified shortcomings (See Annex 5 on 'Specific elements of 
the retained policy options'). 

92   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495865/IPOL-PECH_ET%282013%29495865_EN.pdf 
93   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/474545/IPOL-PECH_NT(2012)474545_EN.pdf 
94   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/460059/IPOL-PECH_ET(2011)460059_EN.pdf 
95   https://www.documents.clientearth.org/wp-content/uploads/library/2016-12-02-slipping-through-the-net-the-control-

and-enforcement-of-fisheries-in-france-ireland-the-netherlands-poland-spain-and-the-uk-england-ce-en.pdf 

96   https://usa.oceana.org/sites/default/files/fish_stories_report_hi-res.pdf 
97   https://issuu.com/capnh/docs/2016-12-02-slipping-through-the-net 
98   https://wwf.be/assets/RAPPORT-POLICY/OCEANS/UK/IUU-report-01-02-16-web.pdf 
99   https://wwf.be/assets/RAPPORT-POLICY/OCEANS/UK/WWF-Traceability-Principles-for-Wild-Caugh-Fish-April-

2015.pdf 

100   http://our.fish/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Our_Fish_Baltic_fish_discards_exec_summary.pdf 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation  

Consultation objectives  

An extensive public consultation was conducted in the framework of the REFIT evaluation in 
2016. It consisted of an online questionnaire with 35 closed questions tackling specific topics, 
complemented  by  3  open  questions  on  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  current  system, 
inviting suggestions on ways forward. A total of 462 contributions were received: 441 replies 
to  the online  questionnaire, 16 of which from  registered organisations, and 21 contributions 
sent by individual stakeholders. The results are published on the Europa webpage101. 

Additional  targeted  consultations  were  later  carried  out  with  the  aim  to  (i)  agree  on  the 
problems  identified  by the  European  Commission  in  the  REFIT  evaluation (ii) agree  on the 
need  for  action;  and  (iii)  collect  inputs  and  receive  feedback  from  as  many  stakeholders  as 
possible  on  the  forward-looking  elements  of  the  inception  impact  assessment  and  on  the 
specific proposed actions proposed by the Commission to address the issues identified. 

The  consultations  especially  involved:  public  authorities  (including  national  competent 
authorities,  regional  and  local  authorities),  Advisory  Councils,  industry/fishermen,  EU  and 
national  associations,  NGOs,  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  and  its 
Administrative  Board,  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency  (EMSA),  FRONTEX  (sea 
border control). 

Discussions were held in several different fora to ensure a broad and exhaustive coverage of 
all  relevant  stakeholders,  including  the  Council  Working  Party  on  Internal  and  External 
Fisheries Policy, and the PECH Committee of the European Parliament.  

Consultation process 

The  objectives  of  the  consultations  were  achieved  carrying  out  the  discussions  in  three 
different phases. 

In  the  first  phase  the  results  of  the  REFIT  evaluation  were  presented  and  discussed  with 
stakeholders102  in  order  to  gather  their  view  on  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  European 
Commission,  agree  on  the  problem  definition,  agree  on  the  main  issues  to  be  tackled,  and 
gather suggestions on possible way forward. The feedback received  allowed DG MARE to 
conceive a first wide range of possible policy options to be investigated for improving the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the Fishery Control System. 

The  second  phase  aimed  at  gathering  stakeholders’  preferences  on  this  first  wide  range  of 
policy  options  initially  conceived,  and  certain  specific  actions  that  could  be  envisaged  to 
tackle  the  agreed  shortcomings  of  the  Fisheries  Control  System.  These  options  and  actions 
were  especially  discussed  with  Member  States  and  their  experts,  and with  other  Institutions 
(Court  of  Auditors,  Council,  European  Parliament),  and  EFCA  in  the  Expert  Group  on 
Compliance  on  5th  July  2017.103  The  result  of  this  second  phase  allowed  DG  MARE  to 

101  https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/evaluation-fisheries-control-regulation_en 
102  Results  were  presented  at  the  following  meetings:  Council  Working  Party  (26.04.2017);  European  Parliament 
Committee  on  Fisheries  (EP  PECH)  (22.06.2017);  Expert  Group  of  the  Control  Regulation  (07.06.2017);  North  Sea 
Advisory  Council  (13.06.2017);  North  Western  Waters  Advisory  Council  (05.07.2017);  Pelagic  Advisory  Council 
(12.07.2017); meeting with WWF and Client Earth (29.06.2017). 

54 

 
 
                                                            
 
discard  early  some  policy  options.  After  the  meeting,  DG  MARE  also  received  written 
feedback,  which  allowed  refining  the  options  based  on  the  suggestions  and  comments 
received. 

The outcome of the consultations carried out under the first and second phases eventually led 
to  the  problem  definition,  objectives  and  three  policy  options  as  laid  down  in  the  Inception 
Impact Assessment published in October 2017. Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback 
on  the  Inception  Impact  Assessment  through  the  Better  Regulation  online  platform,  which 
was active for four weeks. Seven contributions, publicly available104 were submitted.  

Within  the  third  phase,  stakeholders  were  consulted  on  the  3  retained  policy  options 
presented  in  this  Impact  Assessment  and  specific  actions  to  achieve  their  objectives.  In  this 
frame  several  workshops  and  meetings  were  organised  with  the  different  categories  of 
stakeholders to ensure an as broad and as exhaustive coverage as possible. In particular, two 
technical  workshops  were  organised  with  Advisory  Councils,  EFCA,  public  authorities, 
fishing  industry,  European  Fisheries  Organisations  and  Associations  and  with  NGOs.  The 
scope  of  the  workshops  was  to  gather  stakeholders'  views  on  the  3  proposed  policy options 
retained  and  discuss  the  technical  solutions  proposed  to  address  the  control  of  the  landing 
obligation  (15  November  2017)  and  the  other  five  key  areas  identified  for  the  revision  (16 
November  2017).  The  same  discussions  took  place  with  the  Member  States  in  the  Expert 
Group  meeting  on  Fisheries  Control  (6  November  2017),  where  EFCA  and  the  EP  PECH 
secretariat were also present and Advisory Councils were collectively informed in the Inter-
Advisory  Councils  meeting  (14  November  2017).  The  amendments  proposed  for  improving 
traceability  of  fisheries  products  and  market  control  were  presented  in  detail  and  discussed 
also  in  the  Expert  Group  on  Market  and  Trade  (30  November  2017).  The  amendments 
proposed for the EFCA Founding Regulation were also presented in detail and discussed with 
the EFCA Administrative Board in an ad-hoc seminar (19 October 2017). 

DG  MARE  also  attended  various  meetings  organised  by  the  Advisory  Councils,  regional 
Expert  Groups  and  various  stakeholders,  and  carried  out  other  informal  discussions  with 
Member States and stakeholders. 

The main conclusions from all these consultations are summarised below, thereby providing 
an overview of the opinions on the different key areas that were investigated.  

A list of the stakeholders which sent a written contribution is provided in Annex 10.  

The  original  written  contributions  sent  by  stakeholders  and  the  minutes  of  the  above 
mentioned workshops and seminars are published on the European Commission website105. 

Main conclusions from the stakeholders’ consultation 

General overview 

There  was  a  common  agreement  among  stakeholders  on  the  need  to  revise  the  EU 
fisheries control system. Contributions and feedback received highlighted deficiencies in the 
implementation  of  the  fisheries  Control  Regulation,  as  well  as  in  some  of  its  provisions. 
Stakeholders  generally  supported  the  Commission  in  tackling  the  following  major  issues: 
alignment  to  the  CFP,  discrepancies  between  Member  States'  application  of  the  rules, 
complexity of the legislative framework and lack of clarity of some provisions regarding the 

104   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4808152_en 
105   https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_en 

55 

 
                                                            
sanctioning system, availability, quality and sharing of data, the control of small vessels and 
the landing obligation, as well as synergies with other legislations, in particular IUU fishing, 
environment, food law and market. 

Contributions  also  highlighted  issues  such  as  simplification,  regionalisation,  level  playing 
field  and  the  need  for  cost-effective  solutions.  Simplification  and  legal  clarification  of  the 
current  control  rules  were  strongly  encouraged  by  stakeholders  as  the  current  legislative 
framework  remains  too  complex  with  too  many  obligations  and  exemptions.  Additionally, 
some  obligations  can  be  interpreted  and  thus  applied  differently  by  stakeholders. 
Regionalisation  was  seen  as  an  important  concept  for  some  stakeholders,  while  it  was 
considered as a concept not in line with the spirit and the objectives of a Union control policy 
by  others.  Some  asked  for  the  amended  Control  Regulation  to  be  flexible  enough  to 
accommodate  the  specificities  of  each  region  and  fishery;  others  however  did  not  support 
regionalisation  of  fishing  control  rules,  but  voiced  the  need  for  continued  and  enhanced 
harmonisation in the various Member States that would allow for a level playing field within 
the  Union.  The  need  to  create  a  level  playing  field  among  fishery  operators  and  Member 
States across the EU was considered critical and stakeholders stressed the fact that this should 
be  guaranteed  within the  Union.  Exemptions  from  the  main  rules  are deemed  as  sometimes 
necessary. However, they should be kept to a minimum. Lastly, whenever possible, reduction 
of  administrative  burden  and  cost  efficiency  should  be  guiding  principles  of  the  revision 
process.  

Regarding  the  proposed  policy  options,  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  strongly 
supported or had a preference towards Option 2, namely the amendment of the fisheries 
Control  Regulation,  together  with  the  IUU  and  EFCA  Regulations.  The  need  to  amend  the 
IUU  Regulation  was  unanimously  supported  by  all  stakeholders  in  order  to  to  introduce 
electronic catch certificates. 

An overview of stakeholders' views on measures that may prove disruptive or relatively hard 
to implement is given in Table 6.

56 

 
Table 6: Stakeholders' views on measures that may prove disruptive or relatively hard to implement and Commission's remarks  

Area 
Enforcement 

Stakeholders 

NGOs  

Control of the 
landing obligation 

Businesses and most 
Advisory Councils 
(ACs)  

Summary of stakeholders positions 
Full  support  for  amendment  of  the  IUU 
Regulation  to  introduce  the  electronic  catch 
certificate. However no support for amending 
the IUU Regulation on sanctions as this "risks 
to  re-open  this  legislation  and  risks  are  high 
that,  if  pursued,  this  option  will  be  used  to 
weaken  enforcement  provisions  in  both  the 
IUU and Control Regulations". 
Use of remote electronic tools (e.g. CCTV): 
- might constitute invasion of privacy and 
business confidentiality; 
- might be discriminatory; 
- other methods to control (i.e. gram size) 
exist. 

Recreational 
fisheries 

Most Member States 

Called for a cautious approach to avoid 
administrative burden and limit the impacts on 
control means and resources. 

Weighing  

Businesses 

Multiple weighing of fresh fish would be 
detrimental for its quality  

Control of fishing 
capacity 

Businesses and some 
Advisory Councils 
(ACs)  

Control of engine power "is not of relevance 
in the quota system and strongly related to 
fishing vessel safety". "Fishing capacity 
limitation are seen as restriction to adapt 
fishing vessels to new technologies and to the 
discard ban.  

Commission remarks 
The  preferred  option  proposed  a  targeted  revision  of  the  IUU  Regulation  as 
regards the title dealing with enforcement rules, given its tight interlink with the 
enforcement system of the Control Regulation and of the .FCS as a whole. It was 
therefore  considered  that  the  most  effective  way  to  clarify  and  simplify  at  the 
same  time  the  enforcement  rules  of  the  FCS  would  inevitably  require  also 
amending this specific tittle of the IUU Regulation. 
As regards future risks, at this stage it is premature to pre-empt any evolution as 
regards the inter-institutional co-decision process.  
-  Privacy  and  confidentiality  have  been  rigorously  taken  into  account  in  the 
preferred  option  and  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor(EDPS)  was 
consulted; 
- Specific rules will have to be laid down in secondary acts on the installation and 
functioning of CCTVs, as well as in the use and availability of data resulting from 
them; 
- The percentages and types of vessels subject to remote electronic tools will be 
decided at regional level according to risk assessment; 
- Other methods of control (i.e. gram size as proposed by the Pelagic AC) are not 
applicable to all fisheries, and most importantly are based on unverified data. 
The preferred option proposes: 
- Minimum control requirements to be applied at national level by Member States, 
depending  and  coherently  with  any  requirements  set  in  Union  conservation 
measures applicable to recreational fisheries; 
- National Control Programmes set according to risk analysis; 
-  When  deemed  necessary,  further  control  provisions  could  be  set  in  secondary 
acts. 
In the preferred option no superfluous multiple weighing is imposed. For unsorted 
catches  not  for  human  consumption  sampling  plan  will  still  be  a  possibility. 
Unsorted catches for human consumption need anyway to be sorted and weighted 
before final sale. 
The CFP sets fishing capacity ceilings for each Member States in terms of engine 
power and gross tonnage.  
The Control Regulation needs to provide the necessary tools for its enforcement, 
while changing those two ceilings on fishing capacity – as argued by businesses, 
is out of the scope of this initiative as it pertains to the CFP.  

57 

 
 
 
Specific opinions on the elements proposed  

A. Enforcement 

Stakeholders  generally  considered  that  the  proposed  amendments  on  enforcement  rules  are 
intended to improve the consistency and effectiveness of national sanctions for infringements 
of the CFP.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  acknowledged  that  the  current  framework  requires  greater 
clarification,  including  certain  Articles  of  the  IUU  Regulation.  Some  provisions  are 
differently  laid  down  in  the  Control  Regulation  and  in  the  IUU  Regulation.  This  leads  to 
possible  misinterpretations  regarding  sanctions,  serious  infringements  and  the  point  system, 
therein  causing  confusion  on  its  application.  Nevertheless,  Member  States  recalled  their 
national competencies with regard to the treatment of infringements and the definition of level 
of  sanctions,  thus  implicitly  warning  against  any  attempts  to  excessively  harmonise  related 
provisions  at  EU  level  [thus  the  option  to  fully  harmonise  sanctions  at  EU  level  was 
discarded, see sub-option A.1 in Annex 6]. 

The  possible  amendments  to  clarify  the  current  enforcement  rules  were  also  generally 
supported  by  other  stakeholders, 
including  Advisory  Councils  and  NGOs.  They 
acknowledged the level of complexity and the need to harmonise sanctions to obtain a better 
level playing field throughout the Union. 

In particular, NGOs highlighted some issues regarding the lack of clarity on provisions related 
to  enforcement,  and  noted  that  national  criteria  largely  differ  from  one  Member  State  to 
another, leading to an uneven playing field. NGOs also called for more dissuasive sanctions to 
effectively combat illegal practices and supported the idea to make the sharing of inspection 
reports between Member States mandatory. 

Similarly,  Advisory  Councils  underlined  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  harmonised 
implementation  of  sanctions.  They  emphasised  the  need  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field 
amongst Member States and third countries fishing in EU waters. They also called for greater 
clarifications  on  sanctions  and the  point  system  for  serious  infringements,  as  well  as  on  the 
need  to  have  all  control  measures  in  one  Regulation  and  avoid  the  mushrooming  of  control 
provisions  within  other  Regulations.  On  the  definitions  of  serious  infringements  however 
some Advisory Councils and NGOs did not support the amendment of the IUU Regulation, 
claiming that those are already clear and well defined in the IUU Regulation. 

A  fisheries  association  stressed  the  need  for  a  harmonised  sanctioning  system  with  a  clear 
definition for serious infringements and a compilation of all control measures in one legal act. 

B. Data: quality, availability and sharing 

B1. Reporting and tracking for vessels below 12 m 

There was general  agreement among  Member States that tracking and reporting  of catches 
should  be  extended  to  all  vessels,  irrespective  of  their  size.  Yet  easy  and  cost-effective 
solutions  should  be  gradually  applied  in  the  near  future.  Most  contributions  stressed  the 
importance  of  investigating  suitable  electronic  devices  with  a  good  cost-efficiency  ratio,  as 
VMS  may  be  too  expensive  for  small  vessels  [thus  the  option  to  tracking  and  reporting  for 
small  through  VMS  /ERS  was  discarded,  see  option  B.1  in  Annex  6).  Alternative  potential 
solutions proposed  by Member States included the use  of GPS equipment, AIS, and  mobile 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
phone.  The  introduction  of  these  devices  and  electronic  catch  reporting  for  all  vessels  was 
deemed to be beneficial.  

Other  stakeholders  including  Advisory  Councils,  NGOs  and  fisheries  associations  and 
organisations  generally  supported  this  key  area,  with  a  warning  that  the  system  should  be 
user-friendly, cost-effective and in general not burdensome. Some representatives of fisheries 
associations  expressed  preference  for  reporting  of  catches  to  be  conducted  after  landing. 
Tracking  was  perceived  as  very  important,  including  to  control  fishing  activities  in  fishing 
restricted  areas  and  in  marine  protected  areas  (MPAs).  One  Advisory  Council  called  for  a 
clearer definition of the scope as per the need for such data to be  collected. The need to be 
careful, not to discriminate and to monitor all segments of vessels equally was also stressed. 

NGOs also called for the elimination of the 50 kg derogation by species in the logbook, to be 
applied to all categories of vessels. 

B2. Control of recreational fisheries 

The  control  of  recreational  fisheries  is  the  matter  on  which  opinions  differ  most  amongst 
consulted stakeholders. The initially proposed introduction of fully fledged control measures 
at EU level on recreational fisheries was fully supported only by one Member State. Most of 
the concerns of other Member States for thorough and rigorous control provisions related to 
the high administrative burden and costs that such measures would entail [thus the option to 
fully  control  all  types  of  recreational  fisheries  was  discarded,  see  option  B.3  in  Annex  6]. 
Some  Member  States  defended  the  notion  that  the  impact  of  recreational  fisheries  is  not 
substantial, despite the huge number of participants. Other Member States recognised that the 
impact was real, but it is difficult if not impossible to estimate it because of the lack of proper 
data. Although some Member States were only in favour of national measures, others seemed 
not  to  exclude  EU  measures  in  specific  circumstances  and  when  scientific  advice  provides 
evidence of high impacts on the overall status of already depleted stocks (e.g. Seabass in the 
Atlantic and Cod in the Baltic Sea). 

Other  stakeholders  generally  agreed  that  additional  EU  control  measures  for  recreational 
fisheries  are  necessary.  NGOs  fully  supported  the  specific  actions  proposed,  as  there  is 
currently  no  reliable  data  on  the  impacts  of  recreational  fisheries.  Some  referred  to  a  huge 
"black hole" in monitoring, especially in the Mediterranean Sea, and asked to further regulate 
recreational  fisheries.  They  also  recommended  stricter  guidelines,  including  outlining  rules 
for  licensing  and  catch  reporting  procedures.  One  fisheries  association  suggested  proposed 
specific  actions to  be  improved. In  particular, the registration of recreational fishing vessels 
should  be  extended  to  all  recreational  fishermen  (including  shore-based  anglers  and 
spearfishers) as these categories could have higher impacts on some key stocks. The control 
of  recreational  fisheries  was  considered  as  important  for  four  Advisory  Councils  which 
highlighted the need for strengthen control measures. One Advisory Council however argued 
that  a  personal  licencing  system  would  be  more  efficient  and  useful,  while  registration  of 
vessels  might  prove  difficult  for  most  vessels  involved  in  these  fisheries.  Stakeholders  also 
raised issues on controllability, possible administrative burdens for national governments and 
the difficulty to implement a licencing system. 

Following the above comments on the initial proposal the Commission revised it [see Annex 
5] and the option to fully control all types of recreational fisheries was discarded [see option 
B.3 in Annex 6]. 

59 

 
 
 
B3. Weighing, transport and sale 

Regarding key provisions on weighing, transport and sales, most  Member States agreed on 
the  need  to  simplify  and  clarify  related  rules,  and  called  for  greater  accuracy  on  catch 
reporting.  Although  maintaining  the  existing  legal  structure  was  dismissed  as  considered 
ineffective  (see  discarded  technical  sub-option  B4  in  Annex  6),  yet  a  rational  equilibrium 
should be found between the necessity to control every landing and the feasibility of doing so 
effectively.  Imposing  weighing  at  landing  for  all  fisheries  was  not  considered  realistic  for 
unsorted landings and reservations on specific measures initially proposed for weighing were 
made  (see  discarded  technical  sub-option  B5  in  Annex  6).  In  particular,  certain  Member 
States called for additional discussions on the margins of tolerance and a clearer definition of 
the role of transport documents. They also asked for a better clarification of responsibilities 
and accountabilities of operators at all process stages. One  Advisory Council called for the 
adaptation of the so-called margin of tolerance of 10% which is strongly limiting fishermen, 
and for a delayed transmission of the logbook. 

NGOs  and  Advisory  Councils  also  generally  supported  the  need  to  simplify  related  rules. 
Yet  opposition  on  the  proposed  measures  was  voiced  by  certain  representatives  of  the 
Advisory  Councils,  notably  in  terms  of  logistics  and  implementation  issues  for  Member 
States.  They  called  for  control  measures  that  would  still  allow  businesses  to  operate  more 
easily.  NGOs  raised  concerns  over  the  current  weighing  practices,  and  asked  to  ensure  that 
weighing takes place at landing, supporting a controllable/approved system. 

B4. Monitoring of the fishing capacity 

Although monitoring of engine power was deemed as important to abide by capacity ceilings 
set in the CFP, limited feedback was received on the necessity to strengthen control measures 
through its continuous monitoring. Member States did not consider it as being necessary or 
suggested  that  the  specific  actions  proposed  would  change  the  current  systems  in  place.  In 
particular, one Member State stressed the need for enhanced monitoring, and highlighted the 
presence  of  possible  difficulties  in  applying  proposed  provisions,  and  declared  that  it  was 
currently  developing  a  "black  box  system"  at  national  level.  Most  representatives  from  the 
Advisory  Councils  raised  concerns  related  to  the  necessity  to  strengthen  control  measures 
through continuous monitoring of engine power. In fact, some of them requested the removal 
of  measures  to  control  fishing  capacity  which,  in  their  view,  are  seen  as  anachronistic  and 
even  questioned  the  capacity  ceilings  set  in  the  CFP,  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  this 
revision  exercise.  Fisheries  associations  and  some  Advisory  Councils  did  not  support  the 
idea of controlling the fleet capacity by monitoring engine power as it would not be relevant 
for  the  quota  system  and  stressed  that  capacity  ceilings  are  in  conflict  with  safety 
requirements  for  fishing  vessels,  with  the  landing  obligation  or  with  adaptations  to  new 
technologies (see discarded technical sub-option B.6 in Annex 6). In contrast, NGOs agreed 
with  the  description  of  the  problem,  welcomed  the  specific  actions  proposed,  called  for 
current  rules to  be  fully  implemented by Member States and for additional  provisions to  be 
laid down on the control of gross tonnage, as also requested by the ECA.  

B5. Data management and sharing at EU level 

Member States acknowledged the importance of data exchange at EU level. Although rules 
exist, they need to be better implemented and efforts on data collection and sharing should be 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
enhanced, whilst abiding by data protection laws. More specifically, it was noted that Member 
States often have to send the same information to different parties. Some proposals suggested 
using a common database which could be managed by the Commission or a central EU-level 
end  point  which  would  disseminate  the  information  to  relevant  recipients.  Member  States 
stressed the need for greater clarification in EU legislation as per what data needs to be shared 
and who needs to have access to them. 

Only limited feedback was given on this topic by Advisory Councils, NGOs and European 
fisheries  organisations  and  associations.  This  topic  is  mainly  seen  as  an  issue  impacting 
Member  States'  authorities  excluding  other  stakeholders.  Three  Advisory  Councils  and  one 
NGO supported the proposed actions (i.e. moving to full digitisation, electronic reporting and 
to an integrated EU information system). 

C. Control of the landing obligation 

The majority of stakeholders acknowledged that conventional controls, such as inspections at 
sea,  are  not  effective  to  control  and  enforce  compliance  of  the  landing  obligation  [The 
possibility  to  require  for  the  presence  on  board  was  discarded  for  a  number  of  reasons,  see 
discarded technical sub-option C.1 in Annex 6]. 
On  this  issue,  Member  States  were  overall  supportive  of  the  introduction  of  new  control 
tools,  such  as  Remote  Electronic  Monitoring  (REM)  with  closed-circuit  television  (CCTV) 
cameras and/or, in particular circumstances, the deployment of remote piloted aircraft systems 
(i.e. drones), to control and ensure compliance of the landing obligation. However, in view of 
the potential cost and resources needed to analyse the generated data, Member States called 
for  its  cost/benefit  ratio  to  be  carefully  checked  in  every  sector  and  how  a  certain  level 
playing  field  should  be  ensured  amongst  Member  States  in  the  deployment  of  proposed 
technologies [See discarded technical sub-options C2 and C3 in Annex 6]. Although Member 
States  raised  concerns  over  personal  data  protection,  they  widely  agreed  on  the  need  to 
identify those  vessels to be equipped with  CCTV cameras  on a risk analysis basis, with the 
support of EFCA. 

Other  stakeholders  acknowledged  current  low  levels  of  compliance  with  the  landing 
obligation  and  the  lack  of  application  of  effective  means  to  control  at  sea.  One  Advisory 
Council representative recommended the application of CCTVs to vessels with inherent high 
risks.  However,  it  also  stressed  how  some  fundamental  issues  would  remain  (e.g.  type  of 
CCTV  system,  level  of  details,  data  sharing).  Another  Advisory  Council  stressed  that  the 
landing obligation is not appropriate in the Mediterranean also in light of the cost-benefit ratio 
that  it  brings.  One  Advisory  Council  was  in  favour  of  using  CCTV  for  the  control  of  the 
landing obligation as long as it would be applied according to risk analysis, while another one 
propose an alternative method for its control. In line with Member States' position, although 
concerns were raised regarding privacy and data protection, NGOs generally recognised REM 
with  CCTV  cameras  as  the  most  promising  and  effective  solution.  A  fisheries  association 
was sceptical of 100% coverage for high risk vessels and suggested to apply REM tools on a 
voluntary  basis  to  avoid  possible  privacy-related  and  business  confidentiality  breaches,  as 
well  as  the  spreading  of  mistrust.  One  national  organisation  raised  the  necessity  to  fully 
implement the landing obligation prior to any adaptation of control measures. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
D. Increased synergies with other policies 

Stakeholders agreed with the need to increase synergies with other policies, notably regarding 
environment, food law and market. 

D1. Environment 

Some Member States agreed on the need to have minimum requirements for the control of 
fishing  restrictions  due to environmental obligations. Yet one Member State warned against 
the  possibility  to  mix  policies,  as  fisheries  and  environment  have  different  interests.  NGOs 
strongly  supported  the  idea  to  extend  the  control  of  fishing  restricted  areas  to  all  marine 
protected areas. Advisory Councils were in general supportive while remaining cautious on 
the specific measures to apply. One Advisory Councils was not supportive of any strengthen 
provision. 

D2. Food Law 
Stakeholders  (including  five  Member  States and  three  Advisory  Councils)  fully  supported 
the need to align terminologies and general principles of the Control Regulation with the Food 
Law. 

D3. Market control, traceability, IUU fishing 

Most  Member  States,  Advisory  Councils,  NGOs  and  a  fisheries  organisation 
acknowledged  that  the  current  traceability  system  is  ineffective  and  showed  interest  in 
improving the system. Rather than removing traceability-related [see discarded technical sub-
option  D1  in  Annex  6]  stakeholders  actively  called  for  an  improvement  of  the  rules.  One 
national  business  organisation  pointed  out  at  huge  discrepancies  between  the  derogations 
provided by the Control Regulation at various levels of the supply chain (50 € or 30 kg) and 
market data that would instead support derogations for much lower quantities. 

Member  States  agreed  that  there  is  a  need  to  clarify  definitions  (e.g.  lot)  and  provisions, 
including the objective of traceability and its use. The general Food Law approach (one step 
back,  one  step  forward)  was  given  as  an  example  by  two  Member  States,  who  then 
recommended it to be implemented in the revision of the Control Regulation. The addition of 
the  requirement  regarding  a  unique  trip  identifier  was  also  largely  debated.  Two  Member 
States  thought  it  would  make  the  system  more  complex  and  increase  the  administrative 
burden  for  both  the  industry  and  the  authorities,  while  four  others  agreed  with  the  idea. 
Furthermore,  digitalising  the  system  to  control  the  application  of  CFP-related  rules  at  all 
stages of the supply chain was supported by most Member States. They were also supportive 
of  the  presented  EU-wide  system  defining  it  as  the  only  way  to  ensure  traceability  and 
monitor fishery catches. 

Furthermore,  four  Member  States  and  a  fisheries  association  agreed  with  the  fact  that 
products from third countries should be as traceable as EU products, ensuring a level playing 
field. As a result, five Member States favoured the digitalisation of the IUU catch certificate. 

All NGOs supported the approach implying stronger rules on market control and traceability, 
and they were in favour of the digitisation of the IUU catch certificate.  

Advisory Councils also asked for clarifications with regard to some definitions, concepts and 
current  provisions.  According  to  one  Advisory  Council,  traceability-related  requirements 
could  be  met  if  properly  aligned  with  and  complementing  existing  food  safety  traceability 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
systems. Another one was fully supportive of the digitalisation of the IUU catch certificate. A 
last  one  called  for  greater  control  of  traceability  for  imported  fish  but  also  asked  for  more 
flexibility in the interpretation of the term "lot", notably in the Mediterranean. 

E. EFCA Founding Regulation 

The  proposed  revision  of  the  EFCA  Founding  Regulation  was  broadly  supported  by 
including  Member  States,  Advisory  Councils,  NGOs  and  fisheries 
stakeholders 
associations. Advisory Councils emphasised the importance of the existing good cooperation 
with  the  Agency  and  welcomed  an  extended  role  of  EFCA,  especially  with  regard  to  its 
external dimension. This would include the possibility to carry out inspections and activities 
beyond international waters.  

A summary of the views above is graphically presented in Figure 15. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15: Overview of stakeholders views 

64 

 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 

This Annex presents a summary of the practical implications and costs of the initiative for the 
directly  affected  stakeholders,  together  with  the  benefits  associated  to  it  (for  direct  and 
indirectly  affected  stakeholders).  A  description  of  the  identified  stakeholders  is  provided  in 
Annex 8. 

14.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Stakeholders' category  How will stakeholders be affected? 

Business: commercial 
fishermen, supply chain 
operators 

Business: ICT 
companies and start-up 

  Increased vessel profitability, wages of fishermen and overall 

competitiveness of the EU industry; 

  Owners  and  masters  of  vessels  below  12m  would  phase  out 
paper  logbooks  and  in  general  paper  reporting  systems  and 
move to simple electronic devices such as mobile phones that 
would allow an easy and cost-effective tracking and electronic 
reporting ; 

  Fishing operators of vessels considered at high risk of discards 
at  sea  would  have  to  install  CCTVs  on  board,  to  ensure  a 
proper control of the "landing obligation"; 

  Owners  of  certain  categories  of  vessels  would  have  to  install 
devices  for  the  continuous  recording  of  the  power  developed 
by the engines; 

  All  fishermen  would  have  to  use  certified  and  approved 
weighing  systems.  The  record  of  catches  in  the  landing 
declarations  would  have  to  include  all  the  quantities  of  fish 
landed;  

  Operators  in  the  supply  chain  would  have  to  implement 

electronic traceability systems, if not done already. 

  Creation  of  new  jobs  in  IT  technologies  and  software 

development. 

Member States  

Member States would: 

  Align  their  national  sanctioning  systems  to  the  common  EU 

rules; 

  Develop ICT solutions to complete digitisation of the fisheries 
data systems and to manage the new data flow e.g. for tracking 
and reporting of small vessels, recreational fisheries, electronic 
inspection  reports,  traceability  (the  costs  are  reimbursable 
under the EMFF – see Section 1.3); 

  Implement  the  new  digital  system  for  the  imported  fishery 
products from third countries (electronic catch certificate) and 
phase out paper-based verifications; 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders' category  How will stakeholders be affected? 

EU institutions and 
bodies 

  Experience a net decrease in administrative burden; 

  Improve  collaboration  and  exchange  of  data  with  other 

Member States; 

  Equip  and  train  inspectors  for  the  use  of  the  electronic 

inspection report; 

  Identify,  in  collaboration  with  EFCA  and  according  to  risk 
assessment, the vessels at high risk of discard so to equip them 
with CCTV technologies.; 

  Train  inspectors  to  acquire  the  technical  knowledge  to  check 

engine power data from new devices installed. 

The European Commission would : 

  Work  in  collaboration  with  Member  States  and  EFCA  to 
ensure  that  the  full  digitisation  of  data  is  put  in  place  using 
compatible  standards  and  that  when  different  systems  are 
developed they are interoperable; 

  Continue the development of open sources ICT systems; 

  Control that the new rules are effectively implemented by the 

Member States; 

  Finalise  the  development  of  the  electronic  catch  certification 

system under the IUU Regulation. 

EFCA would:  

  Review  their  work  programme  strategy  and  priority  to  adjust 

their activities to the revised missions and tasks; 

  Reinforce  cooperation  with  Member  States  especially  as 
regards the control of the landing obligation and develop with 
them  the  necessary  standardised  procedures  to  process  the 
information obtained with REM and CCTV; 

  Contribute  to  set-up an EU-wide  system  to  exchange  data on 

infringements and sanctions. 

Others: citizens, 
recreational fishermen 

  Better  traceability,  sustainability  and  thus  security  of  fish 

stock supplies; 

than 

today,  requiring 

  Recreational  fishermen  would  generally  be  subject  to  stricter 
licencing  or 
rules 
registration  (depending  on  the  Member  States)  and  reporting 
of catches, with frequency and procedures defined at Member 
States level and based on the stocks/species they fish for. 

in  particular 

66 

 
 
 
 
15.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

An overview of the benefits for all the identified categories of stakeholders is provided in the 
Table I. 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Enforcement 

Data reporting and 
management (e.g. 
digitisation, reporting 
of vessels <12m) 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

-  Deterrent sanctions; 
- 

Improved  compliance  with  CFP 
rules; 

-  Equal treatment of fishermen. 

Comments 

-  Decreased administrative burden; 
-  Future proof system; 
- 

Increased  quality,  reliability  and 
availability of fisheries data; 
-  Easier  exchange  of  data  between 
Member  States  and  Member 
States  and  the  Commission  and 
EFCA; 
Improved 
assessment; 

stock 

data 

for 

- 

Control of fishing 
capacity 

Control of the landing 
obligation 

-  Reduction of overfishing. 

-  Reduction of discards. 

Synergies with 
environmental 
legislation 

IUU electronic 
certificate 

All actions 

All actions 

-  Control  of  marine  protected 

areas. 

-  More  effective  and  efficient 
reporting of lost fishing gears. 

-  Ensure  legality  of  fish  imports 

(reduced fraud) 

Indirect benefits 

-  Healthier fish stocks 

Medium term 

- 
- 

- 

Increased fishermen wages; 
Increased 
fishermen 
EU 
competitiveness,  especially  for 
the small fleet; 
Job created (especially in ICT). 

Short and (medium term); 

Commercial small scale fishermen 
will benefit from reduced unfair 
competition of recreational 
fishermen 

All actions  

-  General  public  will  be  indirectly 
especially 
those 
fisheries  products, 

affected, 
consuming 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All actions  

(better  traceability,  sustainability 
and  thus  security  of  fish  stock 
supplies) 

- In  addition,  the  proposal  will  bring 
about  considerable  cost  savings  and 
improved  efficiency  in  controls,  to 
the  benefit  of  effective  use  of  EU 
tax-payers' money 

- General  public  will  be  indirectly 
affected, especially those consuming 
(better 
products, 
fisheries 
traceability,  sustainability  and  thus 
security of fish stock supplies) 
- In  addition,  the  proposal  will  bring 
about  considerable  cost  savings  and 
improved  efficiency  in  controls,  to 
the  benefit  of  effective  use  of  EU 
tax-payers' money 

Table I: Overview of benefits for the preferred option (Option 2 relative to the Baseline) 

An overview of the costs associated for businesses and administrations is provided in table 
below. No costs (nor direct, nor indirect) have been identified for citizens. 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (most likely costs in M€ over a 5 year period) 

Citizens/Consumers   Businesses 

Administrations 

One-
off 

Recurrent  One-
off 

Recurrent  One-
off 

Recurrent 

7.2* 

5.1* 

-4.2 

Control of the landing 
obligation 

Monitoring of the 
fishing capacity (engine 
power) 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

*reimbursable under EMFF – see section 1.3 

Table II: Overview of costs for the preferred option (Option 2 relative to the Baseline) 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Analytical methods 

Methodology for assessing impacts 

General approach 

Impacts  were  assessed  for  the  two  policy  options  (and  the  fully  enforced  baseline), 
considering  for  each  the  five  key  areas  of  targeted  amendments  (Enforcement,  Data 
availability,  quality  and  sharing,  Control  of  the  landing  obligation,  Synergies  with  other 
policies, and EFCA). The methodology for assessing impacts took also into account the need 
to  assess  direct  and  indirect  impacts  as  stated  in  the  EC  Better  Regulation  Guidelines106 
(Figure 16). 

The assessment recognized that impacts:  

i.  Would  be  felt  principally  by:  a)  businesses  directly  concerned  by  the  EU  control 
policy (vessels owners, and crew, processors, transporters - typically SMEs); b) public 
administrations  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  control  policy  (the 
Commission,  Member  State  Authorities,  EFCA107);  c)  consumers  (of  fish);  and  d) 
parties  having  an  interest  in  the  EU  control  policy  (civil  society  with  interest  in 
environmental protection); 

ii.  Are  easily  monetised  for  some  actions  contained  in  the  policy  options,  but  not  for 

others;  

iii.  May result in costs (or savings) that are either one-off or recurrent; 
iv.  May  arise  immediately  following  amendments  to  the  Control  Regulation,  the  EFCA 
Founding  Regulation  and  the  IUU  Regulation  depending  on  the  options  (e.g.  some 
types  of  direct  costs),  or  be  felt  over  the  medium-  to  longer-term  (e.g.  ongoing 
recurrent costs/savings, environmental benefits and the knock-on economic and social 
benefits); and 

v.  May  in  some  cases  (e.g.  impacts  on  some  types  of  direct  costs)  be  easily  linked  to 
specific  actions  in  the  policy  options,  but  not  in  others  (e.g.  environmental  benefits 
would result from multiple actions in the options combining together and overall from 
the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  conservation  policy,  and  it  is  not  feasible  to  distinguish 
specific  environmental benefits  from  specific  actions  contained  in  the policy  options 
nor  is  it  readily  feasible  to  disentangle  effects  from  different  EU  initiatives  having 
effects on stocks conservation). 

106   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-58_en_0.pdf   
107   Impacts  of  amendments  to  the  IUU  Regulation  on  third  countries  will  not  be  considered,  as  the  IUU  Regulation  can 
place  no  legal/mandatory  obligations  on  third  countries, and  the requirement  under  policy  option  2  to  digitalise catch 
certificates  would  place  an  obligation  on  MS  at  the  EU  border  to  digitalise  all  catch  certificates  if  provided  by  third 
countries in paper form. 

69 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 16: Impacts, Costs and Benefits from Regulatory Proposals (Source: EC Better Regulation)  

70 

 
 
Assessing costs 

Data  on  existing  costs  was  performed  according  to  a  step-wise  approach.  First,  all  actions 
specified in the policy options were considered individually to map affected parties. Secondly, 
they were screened to assess whether monetisation of costs was feasible. Direct costs assessed 
relate  to:  i)  substantive  compliance  costs;  ii)  administrative  burden;  iii)  regulatory  charges; 
and iv) hassle costs. Administrative burden costs and some compliance costs were monetised. 
Where it was not possible to monetise the impacts (e.g. environmental and social impacts) the 
assessment was done according to qualitative criteria.  

The  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  require  that  whenever  an  assumption  is  particularly 
important or uncertain, sensitivity analysis should be used to check whether changing it would 
lead to significantly different results. A sensitivity analysis of the assessment of direct costs 
was completed to provide a partial, worst/best case scenario sensitivity analysis. This allowed 
for  an  assessment  of  direct  costs  (and  savings)  and  their  presentation  as  three  monetised 
values:  most  likely  scenario,  worst  case  scenario,  and  best-case  scenario.  For  variables  not 
treated  to  the  sensitivity  analysis,  costs/savings  were  kept  the  same  under  the  most  likely 
scenario,  worst  case  scenario,  and  best-case  scenario.  Two  types  of  costs/savings  were 
analysed: time costs and monetary costs. The figures presented in this impact assessment refer 
to the costs under the most likely scenario.  

More information on the methodology used and on the scenarios investigated is provided in 
the Assessment of the impacts of the policy options proposed for the Amendment of the 
Fishery Control System (COFFEY, 2018). 

Assessing benefits  

The policy options were assessed for their environmental, economic and social impacts, using 
a two-step approach. The first step was to assess impacts in these three domains that could be 
linked directly to the five different areas in the different policy options. A range of indicators 
was  specified.  The  second  step  was  to  assess  environmental,  economic,  and  social  impacts 
that would result from the combined effect of actions on a specific impact domain, but which 
could not be disaggregated to the level of the five areas contained within the policy options or 
their  detailed  actions.  These  impacts  were  treated  as  resulting  from  each  policy  option  as  a 
whole. For these types of impacts a second set of indicators was specified. 

More information on the methodology used is provided in the Assessment of the impacts of 
the  policy  options  proposed  for  the  Amendment  of  the  Fishery  Control  System 
(COFFEY, 2018). 

Methodology for comparing the options 

In comparing the options, information is presented in such a way as to allow policy makers to 
make a choice, but also to identify the preferred option. The options were compared objectively 
(through scores as explained below) according to the criteria of:  

  Effectiveness: the extent to which different options would achieve the objectives; 
  Efficiency: the benefits versus the costs;  
  Coherence: the coherence of each option with the objectives of EU policies; 
  Acceptability: in terms of stakeholder views and proportionality; and 
  Adherence: to the recommendations of the relevant EU institutions/organisations; 

71 

 
 
 
Possible methods to compare the options were considered as presented in Table 7 below, with 
Multi-Criteria  Analysis  (MCA)  selected  as  the  preferred  (and  only  suitable)  methodological 
approach.  

Possible Method  Selected/Not 

Reason 

benefit 

Cost 
analysis 
Multi-criteria 
analysis 

selected 
Not Selected 

Selected 

cost 

Least 
analysis 
Cost-
effectiveness 
analysis 

Not Selected 

Not Selected 

Counterfactual 
analysis 

Not Selected 

Not  possible  to  monetise  all  impacts,  as  would 
be required for this method to be applicable 
Appropriate  as  IA  needs  to  be  reconciled  with 
specific  policy  objectives  not  just  monetary 
costs/benefits,  and  impacts  likely  to  be  diverse, 
quantified  in  different  units,  and  contain  a  mix 
of quantitative and qualitative impacts.  
Benefits not fixed and/or standard across policy 
options, as would be required for this method 
Not  possible  to  quantify  all  impacts,  and  FCS 
amendments have more than one main objective 
making  the  method  potentially  misleading  and 
inappropriate 
More  appropriate  for  ex  post  evaluations  than 
impact  assessment,  challenge 
in  finding  a 
credible  approximation  of  what  would  occur  in 
the  absence  of  the  intervention,  insufficient 
budget/time 

Table 7: Selection of methodological approach(es) to comparing options 

MCA  was  used  to  assess  and  rank  the  options.  Each  option  was  assessed  for  its  performance 
against  a  range  of  criteria,  using  performance  scoring  and  certain  criteria  as  shown  below 
(Table 8). 

Legend 

Performance 
score 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
Table 8: Scoring of impacts. 

Does not improve and/or worsens the situation compared to the present scenario  
Small improvements compared to the baseline scenario 
Moderate improvements compared to the baseline scenario 
Large improvements compared to the baseline scenario 
Very significant improvements compared to the baseline scenario 

Each option was assigned a performance figure for each criterion. 

The sum of the performance figures for each criterion was added for each option to compare the 
baseline, Options 1 and 2 to the current scenario (i.e. the status of implementation in 2017, as 
reported  in  the  REFIT  evaluation)  and  to  rank  options.  The  sum  of  performance  figures  is 
presented across all criteria (i.e. one total sum), as well as disaggregated with separate summed 
scores  for  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  and  action  on  recommendations  of  the  EU 
institutions. 

72 

 
 
 
Annex 5: Specific sub-options of the retained policy options 

This Annex provides details on the specific actions foreseen under policy options 1 and 2. 

Option 1: Amendment of the Fisheries Control Regulation 

This  option  considers  targeted  amendments  of  the  Fisheries  Control  Regulation  (hereinafter 
"Control Regulation") limited to the following thematic areas: 
i) Enforcement, including sanctions and point systems and follow up of infringements; 
ii)  Data  availability,  quality  and  sharing,  with  particular  regard  to  better  reporting  and 
tracking for vessels below 12m, data on recreational fisheries, weighing procedures and data, 
and monitoring of the fishing capacity, and data management and sharing at EU level; 
iii) Control of the landing obligation; and 
iv) Synergies with other policies, in particular with the environment, market, food and feed 
policies  and  with  the  policy  on  the  fight  against  illegal,  unregulated  and  unreported  (IUU) 
fishing. 

Those  amendments  will,  among  other  things,  clarify  provisions  currently  prone  to  different 
interpretations  and  leading  to  uneven  implementation  by  Member  States  and  address 
numerous  derogations  that  hinder  the  level  playing  field  among  EU  fishermen.  Overall,  the 
legislative  framework  will  be  simplified  and  unnecessary  administrative  burden  will  be 
reduced  by  either  removing  certain  reporting  obligations  or  by  streamlining  them.  Full 
digitisation of control data, setting the conditions for central EU databases and promoting the 
use of harmonised and/or interoperable ICT tools will be instrumental in this respect. Last but 
not least, the Regulation will be aligned with the Lisbon Treaty. 

For each of the four thematic areas, different solutions to tackle the identified shortcomings 
were initially proposed. In this impact assessment, however, only those prone to achieve the 
set  objectives  with  minimal  administrative  burden  and  that  found  most  support  from 
stakeholders were fully investigated. Those solutions are presented below in detail. A list of 
the technical alternatives discarded following stakeholder consultations (see Annex 2 for the 
process) is provided in Annex 6. 

i.  Enforcement 
The amendments proposed to the enforcement system relate to provisions laid down in  Title 
VII (Inspection and Proceedings) and Title VIII (Enforcement) of the Control Regulation, and 
aim at clarifying, streamlining and increasing effectiveness and efficiency of the current rules 
and at easing and improving the exchange of information among the Member States involved 
in case of infringements (Coastal State, Flag State, Member States whose nationals committed 
infringement), EFCA and the European Commission.  
This would result in the establishment of the following provisions: 
Sanctions (current Title VIII): 

  Define detailed criteria for the categorisation of serious infringements; 
  Fix  current  mismatches  between  the  rules  for  point  system  under  the  Control 

Regulation and the CFP; 

  Provide Member States with common/minimum rules for the masters' point system; 
  Clarify that points apply in addition to the main sanction(s); 
  Clarify  immediate  enforcement  measures  (or  preventive  measures)  to  be  taken  by 

Member States in case of serious infringements; 

73 

 
 
 
  Enable  Member  States  to  exchange  data  on  infringements  and  sanctions  (ECA 

request). 

Inspection and proceedings (current title VII) 

  Digitisation of inspection reports through the use of an Electronic Inspection Report 

System (ECA request). 

ii.  Data availability, quality and sharing 
The  shortcomings  hindering  data  availability,  quality  and  sharing  are  inherent  to  specific 
types  of  fisheries,  specific  vessels  and  intrinsic  to  the  weighing  measures.  The  underlying 
problems are either lack of provisions or too many derogations and exemptions, which render 
the  provisions  virtually  impossible  to  be  effectively  controlled.  The  amendments  proposed 
will therefore address the following areas:  

  Reporting and tracking for vessels below 12 m, logbook data: ensure that vessels 
of  this  category  can  be  monitored  and  have  access  to  an  easy  and  cost-effective 
electronic reporting system of their catches (e.g. using mobile phones technologies), as 
already in place and/or tested in several Member States. The exemption from reporting 
in logbooks catches of less than 50 kg is removed for all categories of vessels and the 
rules  for  the  so-called  "margin  of  tolerance"  are  clarified  and  tailored  to  specific 
situations/fisheries.  

  Control of recreational fisheries: enhance control of recreational fisheries, establish 
mechanisms to have better and more accurate information on the pool of participants 
in these fisheries and on the quantity of associated catches. The conditions are set to 
further  define  more  specific  measures  at  EU  and/or  regional  level,  e.g.  fishing 
authorisations, licenses, vessel registration, rules on fishing gears. 

  Weighing,  transport  and  sales  procedures  and  data:  current  exemptions  that 
undermine  the  accurate  weighing  and  registration  of  landed  fish  will  be  streamlined 
and replaced by a simple and effective system to guarantee a good and accurate weight 
at landing. Under this scenario: 
-  Each quantity of each species landed is weighed on approved systems, recorded in 
weighing  records  and  weighing  activities  are  conducted  by  authorised/permitted 
"registered weighers"; 

-  Targeted procedures are established for unsorted landings and for frozen products; 
-  The  results  of  weighing  are  used  to  complete  landing  declarations  and  transport 

documents; 

-  All  quantities  sold/dispensed  for  private  consumption,  to  non-registered  buyers, 

are recorded in landing declarations.  

-  The  responsibilities  and  accountability  of  operators  in  the  supply  chain  are 

clarified; 

-  The  reporting  procedure  of  documents  from  operators  to  competent  authorities 

(flag state, state of landing, state of sale) are simplified. 

  Monitoring  of  the  fishing  capacity:  provide  a  legal  basis,  in  line  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  ECA,  to  define  implementing  rules  for  the  control  of  gross 
tonnage by Member States. In addition, ensure that the maximum power developed by 
the  engines  when  the  vessels  are  active  can  be  measured  and  recorded.  Under  this 
scenario: 
-  Vessels having engines above 221kW and using active gears, and vessels having 
engines  above  120kW  and  being  covered  by  fishing  efforts  or  power  limitation 

74 

 
 
and/or  specific  technical  measures,  have  a  continuous  monitoring  system  of  the 
maximum power developed by the engines when the vessels are active. 

-  The  information  on  engine  power  is  recorded  and  stored  in  a  specific  device,  so 
that  it  can  be  directly  accessible  to  the  authorities  when  they  are  conducting  an 
inspection at sea or in port. 

  Data  management  and  sharing  at  EU  level:  complete  the  digitisation  of  the  data 

system, and enhance availability and exchange of data. Under this scenario: 
-  All  the  control  documents  (e.g.  logbook,  sales  notes,  landing  declarations, 
transport documents, taking over declarations, inspection reports) become digital 
(no more paper-based system). 

-  The  Commission  has  direct  access  to  control  and  information  data  from  the 
Member States. This will ease exchange among Member States and remove  the 
requirement for a secure part of the website in each of them (Article 116 of the 
Control Regulation). The conditions are also set for merging at EU level certain 
current national lists and databases. 

iii. 

Control of the landing obligation 

The  level  of  proof  required  to  identify  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  suspected  or  observed 
discarding  events  contravene  permitted  discarding  provisions  is  practically  impossible  to 
obtain  using  traditional  means  of  control,  such  as  aerial  surveillance,  inspections  at  sea  and 
landing.  Remote  electronic  monitoring  technology  (REM)  incorporating  closed-circuit 
television (CCTV), have demonstrated the potential to be an effective means to ensure control 
and enforcement of the landing obligation and provide a deterrent to illegal discarding. The 
introduction  of  mandatory  measures  for  the  application  of  such  technology  for  specified 
sectors  according  to  harmonised  risk  management  under  EFCA's  coordinated  "regional  risk 
assessments",  would  be  greatly  beneficial  to  compliance  and  would  ensure  a  level  playing 
field for this key provision of the CFP.  

The  amendments  proposed  will  mandate  the  use  of  remote  electronic  monitoring  tools, 
including  CCTV,  for  the  control  of  the  landing  obligation.  The  new  provisions  will  affect 
individual vessels and fleet segments according to risk assessment, and shall be implemented 
by Member States at regional level. Specifically this scenario foresees: 

-  Vessels coverage levels should be determined per fleet segment in accordance with the 
regional risk assessment and in cooperation with EFCA, including through the use of 
existing specific control and inspection programmes (SCIPs). 

-  Specific  requirements  on  the  installation  and  use  of  CCTVs  should  be  laid  down  in 

secondary legislation. 

iv. 

Synergies with other policies 

The amendments proposed seek synergies with other policies and in particular with  

  Environment:  

-  Empower Member States to effectively control fisheries activities in marine protected 
areas.  This  can  be  easily  achieved  by  revising  the  definition  of  "fishing  restricted 
areas" and by clarifying the provisions of Article 50 (currently limited only to areas set 
in co-decision acts and not at national level). 

-  Ease and improve the reporting of lost fishing gear, in line with the plastic strategy, by 
allowing  fishermen  to  use  the  logbook  for  such  reporting,  and  at  the  same  time 
removing current unnecessary and ineffective reporting obligations. 

-  Remove  the  current  derogation  applicable  to  vessels  <  12m  to  carry  on  board  the 

necessary equipment for the retrieval of lost gear. 

75 

 
 
  Market control (and traceability):  

-  Clarify  current  provisions  on  traceability,  which  resulted  in  difficult  implementation 

and which were prone to different interpretations. 

-  Ensure  that  traceability  information  is  recorded  electronically  and  that  systems  are 
interoperable, so that controls in the supply chain within the internal market are more 
effective and efficient. 

  Food and feed safety: 

-  Remove current inconsistencies by aligning as much as possible the terminology and 

- 

principles of the Control Regulation with the Food Law. 
Introduce  minimum  cooperation  rules  and  procedures  between  Member  States  and 
better definition of responsibilities and accountability of the food chain operators (see 
also weighing, transport and sales chapter). 

Option 2: Amendment of the Fisheries Control System 

Policy option 2 builds upon policy option 1, considering all the approaches and thematic areas 
proposed in the policy option 1 plus the following and a fifth thematic area of the EFCA (not 
implementable in policy option 1 as they need amendment of IUU Regulation and/or of the 
EFCA Founding Regulation). 

i.  Enforcement 

Amendments  to  the  Control  Regulation  and  to  the  IUU  Regulation  are  here  proposed  to 
clarify,  simplify,  streamline  and  significantly  improve  the  current  rules.  Enforcements  rules 
will  only  be  laid  down  in  the  Control  Regulation  to  ensure  one  single  enforcement  system. 
Specifically this scenario entails the following: 

-  Establish a common list of definitions of serious infringements of the CFP. 
-  Without excluding criminal law, provide that infringements of CFP shall be subject to 

- 

administrative sanctions. 
Introduce  common  rules  on  administrative  sanctions  for  infringements  of  the  CFP 
rules by requiring Member States to set national sanctions, including their ranges, in 
accordance to clear benchmarks or minimum levels set in EU rules. This would also 
require defining concepts such as "economic benefit from the infringement"/"value of 
the prejudice to the fishing resources and the marine environment". 

ii. 

Increased synergies with other policies 

To  complement  the  amendments  proposed  in  Option  1  here  further  modifications  are 
proposed for the Control and IUU Regulations seeking synergies with the market control and 
the fight against IUU fishing. In particular, for the following policies, this scenario envisages: 
-  Market control (and traceability): fully extend traceability rules to products from third 

countries; 

-  Fight against IUU: amending the IUU Regulation to digitise the IUU catch certificate, 
in  line  with  the  commitments  of  the  Joint  Communication  on  Ocean  Governance. 
Specifically  this  will  entail  the  use  of  an  EU-wide  IUU  ICT  system  (already  under 
development)  for  the  electronic  submission  and  collection  of  catch  certificates  and 
processing statements. 

-  Other fisheries legislation: control provisions that are currently spread over other legal 
texts are concentrated in one legal instrument or, if not up-to-date or consistent with 
other  provisions,  repealed.  This  is  specifically  the  case  for  the  control  measures 

76 

 
 
 
 
contained in the Mediterranean Regulation and in the Multiannual Plan for the Baltic 
Sea, which will thus be repealed. 

iii.  European Fisheries Control Agency 

Amendment  of  the  EFCA  Founding  Regulation  is  proposed  to  align  EFCA’s  mission  and 
tasks to the changed needs of the new CFP and adaptation of EFCA procedures and working 
practices to take into account the Common Approach on decentralised agencies as adopted in 
the 2012 Joint Statement of the European Parliament the Council of the EU and the European 
Commission. In particular this scenario envisages: 

  Clarifying EFCA's objective, which does not fully reflect EFCA's mission and tasks, 

including as regards the external dimension of the CFP; 

  Empower EFCA to also carry out inspections in EU waters as well as in international 

waters; 

  Allow the participation of representatives of relevant Union Institutions to the EFCA's 

Administrative Board; 

 

 

Introduce  more  flexibility  as  regards  sources  of  revenue,  in  line  with  provisions  of 
other Agencies; 

In  general  align  the  EFCA's  Founding  Regulation  to  the  Common  approach  on 
decentralised agencies, including by clarifying the tasks of the Advisory Body. 

77 

 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Discarded technical sub-options 

During  the  impact  assessment  process  a  range  of  sub-options  to  implement  specific  actions 
proposed  in  policy  option  1  were  discussed  for  each  of  the  five  major  areas  under 
investigation. (i.e. enforcement; data: quality, availability and sharing; control of the landing 
obligation;  increased  synergies  with  other  policies;  and  increase  synergies  with  other 
policies). Among those, some alternatives were retained as they were deemed more relevant 
to  achieving  set  objectives  of  the  initiative  (these  are  described  under  Section  5).  Other 
alternatives and sub-options were discarded, after careful consideration of their likely impacts 
and/or in view of lack of support by stakeholders. The discarded sub-options for each of the 
thematic areas and the rationale behind such decision is provided in the sections below.  

A. Enforcement 

A.1. Fully harmonised sanctioning system at EU level 

A possible alternative was the development of a fully harmonised sanctioning system at EU 
level for infringements related to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This alternative was 
promptly dismissed due to the lack of support from Member States. In this regard, Member 
States voiced two main concerns: on the one hand, the lack of a clear legal basis within the 
Treaties of the European Union on the need to harmonise criminal sanctions related to EU 
policies at EU level; on the other, the treatment of infringements and the definition of serious 
infringements and sanctions are a matter of national competence.  

B. Data availability, quality and sharing 

Reporting and tracking for vessels below 12 m 

B.1 VMS/ERS applicable to all vessels, regardless of their size  

The possibility to widen the scope of Article 9 (Vessel monitoring system; VMS) and Article 
15 (Electronic recording and reporting system;  ERS) to  vessels less than 12  m  was initially 
considered. However, this alternative was later discarded due to the high level of opposition 
from  stakeholders,  who  raised  a  series  of  concerns.  First,  the  obligation  to  install  VMS 
devices and satellite-based transmission contracts is estimated to be too expensive, and such 
financial burden would directly impact fishermen. Secondly, vessels below 12 m usually fish 
close  to  the  coast  and  for  short  fishing  trips,  where  the low  frequency  (generally every  two 
hours) of VMS data transmission would not allow their effective tracking.  

B.2  Mandatory  use  of  AIS  (Automatic  Identification  System)  on  all  vessels  combined 
with an ERS device  

The  obligation  to  use  AIS  as  well  as  an  ERS  device  on  all  vessels  was  considered  and 
discarded  due  to  the  anticipated  difficulties  in  guaranteeing  its  effective  implementation.  A 
major  issue  with  such  proposal  relates  to  its  large  scope,  addressing  a  widened  number  of 
vessels, including small ones, in which the installation of AIS on board would bring about a 
number of difficulties. In addition, such proposal would require Fisheries Monitoring to link 
location data from high frequency AIS signals with related ERS data, leading to the creation 
of an additional burden on operators. In parallel, AIS data is directly accessible to the public, 
meaning  that  EU  standards  on  personal  data  protection  should  be  applied  to  respect  data 
subject  privacy  rights.  Furthermore,  AIS  information  could  be  partly  manipulated,  thus 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
possibly triggering a lower degree of compliance. Lastly, ERS is not considered as a fit-for-
purpose  system  ensuring  value-for-money,  due  the  difficulties  that  the  majority  of  vessels' 
masters  would  encounter  to  fully  implement  it  (i.e.  it  encompasses  complex  technology 
measures that would require highly-developed IT skills).  

Control of recreational fisheries 

B.3 Fully-fledged control provision on recreational fisheries 

The possibility to introduce EU mandatory control provisions, similarly to those in  place for 
commercial activities, was considered and dismissed due to the lack of political support by 
the Member States and by the difficulty in estimating the cost-benefit ration in the absence of 
reliable data on this sector. Recreational fisheries in the EU correspond to a large number of 
activities  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  France  is  estimated  to  have  more  than  1,3  marine 
recreational  fisheries)  and  regions  (e.g.  it  is  estimated  that  Atlantic  and  Mediterranean 
regions  have  5.9  and  2.8  million  European  marine  recreational  fisheries  respectively108, 
while a recent study109 concluded that there are a total of 10 million recreational fishermen in 
the Baltic region). The dismissal of such proposal is also backed up by certain stakeholders, 
who  pointed  out  that  covering  all  types  of  recreational  fisheries  would  likely  increase  the 
administrative burden on both managers and operators. 

Weighing, transport and sales 

B.4  Maintain  existing 
responsibilities 

legal  structure  and  clarify  derogations  and  operator 

The alternative to maintain the existing legal structure of the Control Regulation, whilst solely 
clarifying  derogations  and  operator  responsibilities,  was  dismissed  for  existing  procedures 
regarding weighing and catch registration would not address the structural weaknesses of the 
current  system.  More  specifically,  this  proposal  would  not  ensure  the  registration  of  each 
quantity of each species caught. In parallel, the sole clarification of operator responsibilities at 
all stages of the supply chain would not remedy current deficiencies. 

B.5 Impose weighing at landing for all fisheries 

Under  this  alternative,  operators  would  have  to  weigh  each  quantity  of  each  species  for  all 
types  of  catches  at  landing  before  transport,  storage  or  sale.  This  alternative  was  promptly 
discarded due to the unfeasibility of requesting the weighing of unsorted landings.  

Monitoring of the fishing capacity 

B.6 Remove the engine power parameter from the equation and take into account only 
the gross tonnage for computing fishing capacity  

This alternative would require Member States to carry out gross tonnage checks on-the-spot to 
increase data reliability. Although having the possibility to ease related monitoring activities, 

108   Hyder  K,  Radford  Z,  Prellezo  R,  Weltersbach  MS,  Lewin  WC,  Zarauz  L,  Ferter  K,  Ruiz  J,  Townhill  B,  Mugerza  E, 
Strehlow HV (2017) Research for PECH Committee – Marine recreational and semi-subsistence fishing - its value and 
its impact on fish stocks, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels. 

109 http://www.ccb.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ccb_recreational_fishing.pdf 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
such  proposal  was  dismissed  as  it  would  require  the  modification  of  requirements  in  other 
legislative frameworks (e.g. the fishing capacity ceilings, expressed as GT and kW, set out in 
Annex II of the CFP). In parallel, this alternative would lead to the discrimination of certain 
fisheries as per their certified/licensed engine power parameters. 

C. Control of the landing obligation 

C.1 Require the presence of observers on board 

The possibility to require for the presence of observers on board was initially considered as it 
may  lead  to  a  number  of  benefits,  including  the  promotion  of  compliance  with  the  landing 
obligation at sea, the definition of a more flexible control measure rather than closed-circuit 
television (CCTV) cameras without an initial capital outlay.  

Nonetheless, this alternative was discarded for a number of reasons: (i) it would be necessary 
to employ a far larger number of observers in rotating shifts to ensure 24-hour coverage; (ii) 
small fishing vessels would not have sufficient room to host observers, especially during long 
trips;  (iii)  the  costs  incurred  by  employing  observers  on  many  fishing  vessels  would  be 
disproportionate  to  the  results  one  might  get  (e.g.  the  need  for  two  observers  to  be  awake 
throughout  fishing  operations  may  result  in  over  €2000  per  day110;  average  cost  of 
€5000/month  per  observer  incurred  in  the  NAFO  observer  programme);  and  (iv)  while 
recognising  the  feasibility  of  costs  incurred  by  employing  observers  only  on  those  vessels 
deemed with a high risk of non-compliance, such option would lead to a disproportionate gap 
in control on other vessels that could hardly be justifiable. 

C.2 Define a minimal set of tools that should be used and create incentives 

These  tools  could  include  CCTV,  observers,  data  analysis,  last  haul  verifications  and  gram 
size  analysis.  By  applying  this  alternative,  fishing  operators  would  not  benefit  from  the 
minimum  discard  provisions  or  choke  species  quota  reserves,  unless  they  clearly  declare 
discards at sea. It would also require Member States to dispatch their control strategy to the 
Commission for approval. 

The  alternative  was  dismissed  as  it  would  not  guarantee  a  level  playing  field  amongst 
Member  States,  and  it  would  not  ensure  an  effective  control  and  enforcement  at  sea. 
Furthermore,  the  refusal  to  grant  access  to  choke  species  reserve  quota  would  not  prevent 
unreported  discarding  of  choke  species.  Eventually,  it  would  increase  the  administrative 
burden of the Commission. 

C.3  Require  the  mandatory  use  of  remote  continuous  electronic  monitoring  tools, 
including CCTV, on board all vessels  

This alternative was dismissed due to the disproportionality that would result from applying 
remote  continuous  electronic  monitoring  tools  to  all  vessels,  including  vessels  that  are  not 
impacted  by  the  landing  obligation  and  those  that  operate  in  low  risk111  fisheries.  A  full 
coverage  would  also  be  disproportionate,  leading  to  heavy  expenses  and  enhanced 
administrative  burden  incurred  by  operators  to  comply  with  such  proposal.  Accordingly, 
authorities  would  be  faced  with  both  financial  and  time  constraints  when  (i)  supporting  the 

110   North Western Waters Fishery Control Experts Working Group (2015) Recommended measures to achieve compliance 

with the Landing Obligation in pelagic fisheries in North Western EU Waters. 

111   The impact of non-compliance is low as catching capacity or catches of species subject to the landing obligation are low 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
installation of all systems on board, as well as when (ii) handling a resulting large amount of 
data that would eventually be retrieved. 

C.3  Require  100%  CCTV  coverage  for  certain  categories  of  vessels  with  an  inherent 
highest risk of non-compliance and those with the potential to discard high quantities of 
fish in a short period of time (factory vessels, freezer vessels, refrigerated seawater tank 
vessels, vessels otherwise equipped to pump fish in bulk), while for others apply a risk-
analysis approach 

This alternative was dismissed further to comments received in the stakeholders consultation 
pointing at the fact that certain categories of vessels should not be penalised from the outset 
but  should  be  subject  to  a  regular  risk-assessment,  based  on  a  clear  and  objective  set  of 
principles. 

D. Increased synergies with other policies 

Market control (and traceability) 

D.1 Completely remove traceability-related provisions from the Control Regulation 

The  possibility  to  completely  remove  traceability-related  provisions  from  the  Control 
Regulation was also considered, and later dismissed due to the related non-adherence to CFP 
objectives, as well as the difficulties one may incur while implementing control measures. As 
stated  in  the  Control  regulation,  the  CFP  should  include  rules  that  aim  to  ensure  the 
traceability, security and quality of fisheries and aquaculture products marketed in the Union 
and contribute to an efficient and transparent internal market. A common organisation of the 
markets in fisheries and aquaculture products shall be established to provide consumers with 
accurate  and  reliable  information  regarding  the  origin  of  the  product  and  its  mode  of 
production, in particular through marking and labelling. Accordingly, removing traceability-
related provisions would result in putting transmission of correct information to consumers at 
risk.  In  parallel,  stakeholders  actively  called  for  an  improvement,  rather  than  complete 
cancellation,  of  the  traceability  system.  Stakeholders  further  stressed  the  importance  of 
traceability provisions and the need for clearer provisions, since a fish product supply chain 
that is not transparent could allow for illegal and irresponsible fishing practices, seafood fraud 
(i.e.  no  product  authenticity),  public  health  risks,  and  erroneous  assessment  of  stocks.  Not 
only  would  these  issues  jeopardise  the  sustainability  of  marine  ecosystems,  but  they  would 
also threaten the definition of a level playing field between operators in the Union. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Specific measures of the Control Regulation  

This Annex provides more detailed information on the provisions of the Control Regulation 
(hereafter  "CR")  in  the  four  thematic  areas  where  shortcomings  were  identified  and 
amendments will be proposed under Option 1. 

1. ENFORCEMENT 
According to the CR and the IUU Regulation, the Member States (hereafter "MS") shall take 
appropriate sanctions in an effective, proportionate and non-discriminatory manner, to ensure 
compliance with any rules of the CFP (Art. 84 and Art. 89-93 of the CR and Art. 3 and 41-47 
of the IUU Regulation).  
Sanctions for serious infringements are specifically prescribed as follows:  

Immediate enforcement measures, if necessary; 

  Use of national administrative and/or criminal proceedings; 
 
  Accompanying sanctions, if necessary; 
  Establishment of a point system for fishing licence holders and masters. 

Serious  infringements  are  not  explicitly  defined,  but  the  CR  and  IUU  Regulation  are 
providing for a list of behaviours which may be considered serious. The determination of the 
gravity  of  the  infringements  is  however  left  at  the  discretion  of  MS,  which  should  define  it 
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.   
The CR also provides for the obligation to establish a national register of infringements (for 
serious and non-serious infringements), which is not publicly available in order to protect the 
secrecy of judicial inquiries.  

2. REPORTING AND TRACKING FOR VESSELS < 12 M 
Tracking requirements: according to the CR, vessels above 12m need to be equipped with a 
satellite-based  Vessel Monitoring System  (VMS).  Specific  requirements  are  provided  in  the 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 (hereafter "CIR"). MS may apply 
exemptions for vessels between 12 and 15m under specific conditions. No tracking is required 
for vessels below 12m. 
Reporting requirements: all vessels above 10m need to have a fishing logbook, in which all 
quantities of all species above 50kg need to be recorded (including discards above 50kg) with 
a single 10% tolerance margin. Moreover, all landings (regardless minimum weight) should 
be recorded. The logbook should also contain information on the identification of the vessel, 
the catch areas, the date of catches, the gears used and others, an exhaustive list of which is 
provided in Art14.  
Vessels  above  12m  need  to  have  an  electronic  reporting  system  (ERS),  while  for  vessels 
between 10 and 12m the logbook can be in paper format. MS may exempt masters of vessels 
between 12 and 15m from having an ERS if they operate exclusively within the territorial seas 
of the flag MS; or never spend more than 24 hours at sea from the time of departure to the 
return to port (in case of this derogation than the vessel needs to have a paper logbook). 
The  fishing  logbook  shall  be  submitted  within  48  hours  after  landing  or  transshipment. 
Precise instructions for completion and submission are provided in Annex X of the CIR. 
MS shall monitor vessels  below 10 meters (which do not have a logbook) on the basis of a 
sampling  plan,  based  on  a  methodology  adopted  by  the  Commission  and  transmitted  every 

82 

 
 
 
year  to  the  Commission.  Sales  notes  may  be  also  accepted  as  an  alternative  measure  to 
sampling plans to report catches for those vessels. 

3. CONTROL OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES 
The  activities  of  recreational  fisheries  are  mainly  managed  at  MS  level  following  basic 
principles set up in Art.3, 4, 5 and 55 of the CR:  

  MS  shall  ensure that  recreational  fisheries  on their  territory and  in  Union  waters  are 
conducted  in  a  manner  compatible  with  the  objectives  and  rules  of  the  common 
fisheries policy; 

  The marketing of recreational fisheries products is prohibited; 
  MS  shall  monitor,  on  the  basis  of  a  sampling  plan,  the  catches  of  stocks  subject  to 
recovery plans by recreational fisheries (on shore fishing is excluded). Detailed rules 
for the establishment of sampling plans are developed in Art. 64 of CIR; 

  Each  MS  shall  ensure  that  control,  inspection  and  enforcement  are  carried  out  on  a 
non-discriminatory basis as regards sectors, vessels or persons, and on the basis of risk 
management; 

  The  Council  can  still  adopt  more  stringent  management  and  control  measures  only 

“when a recreational fishery is found to have a significant impact”. 

4. WEIGHING, TRANSPORT AND SALE 
Post landing activities, as detailed by Articles 59 to 68 of the CR, refer to prescribed activities 
intended  to  ensure  that  each  quantity  of  each  species  of  fish,  commercially  landed,  are 
accounted for and form the basis of quota uptake monitoring. Post landing activities include 
the following:  

First sales of fishery products (Art. 59 CR);  

i. 
ii.  Weighing of fishery products (Art. 60-61 CR); 
iii. 
iv. 

Sales notes (Art. 62-65 CR) and take-over declaration requirements (Art. 66-67 CR); 
Transport document requirements (Art. 68 CR). 

i. First sales of fishery products 

MS shall ensure that all fisheries products are first marketed or registered at an auction centre 
or  to  registered  buyers  or  to  producer  organisations.  An  exception  is  made  for  fisheries 
products up to 30 kg which are used only for private consumption. 

ii. Weighing of fishery products112 

All fishery products must be weighed on landing prior to the fisheries products being held in 
storage,  transported  or  sold.  The  figure  resulting  from  the  weighing  shall  be  used  for  the 
completion of landing declarations (LD), transport document (TD), sales notes (SN) and take-
over declarations (TO) and bodies or persons which are responsible for the first marketing of 
fisheries products shall be responsible113 for the accuracy of the weighing operation. 

112   The  CIR  provides  more  detailed  rules  for  the  weighing  of  fishery  products  in  relation  to:  weighing  records  (art.  70), 
timing of weighing (art. 71), weighing systems (art 72), weighing of frozen fishery products (art 73) and ice and water 
(art. 74). In addition, art 78-90 CIR provide special rules for the weighing of certain pelagic species.  

113   Except when weighing takes place on board a fishing vessel in accordance with an approved SP (art 60.3 CR), in which 

case it shall be the master’s responsibility. 

83 

 
 
 
                                                            
There are four exceptions to the mandatory weighing at landing. When the MS has adopted 
and the Commission has approved one of the following sampling plans (SP): 

-  Art. 60.1. Weighing at landing114 
-  Art. 60.3. Weighing on board3 
-  Art. 61.1. Weighing after transport (destination in same MS)115 
-  Art. 61.2. Weighing after transport (destination in different MS)4 

iii. Sales notes and take-over declaration requirements 

Registered  buyers,  registered  auctions  or  other  bodies  or  persons  authorised  by  MS 
responsible  for  the  first  marketing,  shall  submit  a  sales  note  (SN)116  to  the  competent 
authorities of the MS in whose territory the first sale takes place, as follows: 

- 

- 

If their annual financial turnover is EUR 200 000 or more they shall record and send 
SN by electronic means, within 24 hours after completion of the first sale.  
If their annual financial turnover is less than EUR 200 000, they shall submit the SN, 
if possible electronically, within 48 hours after the first sale.  

If the MS in whose territory the first sale takes place is not the flag MS, it shall ensure that a 
copy  of  the  SN  is  submitted,  to  the  competent  authorities  of  the  flag  MS  upon  receipt  the 
information. 

Where the first marketing does not take place in the MS where the products have been landed, 
the MS responsible for controlling the first marketing shall submit a copy of the SN, to the 
competent authorities responsible for controlling the landing and to the competent authorities 
of the flag MS upon receipt of the sales note. 

When the landing and first sale takes place outside the Union, the master or his representative 
shall  forward  a  copy  of  the  SN  or  any  equivalent  document  containing  the  same  level  of 
information to the competent authority of the flag MS within 48 hours after the first sale. 

In  cases  where  the  MS  has  installed  an  acceptable  sampling  system,  the  Commission  may 
grant an exemption from the obligation to submit the sales note for fisheries products landed 
from fishing vessels of less than 10 metres’ length overall or for quantities not exceeding 50 
kg of live weight equivalent by species.  

A buyer acquiring products up to an amount of 30 kg which are used for private consumption 
shall be exempted from the above provisions. 

When  the  fisheries  products  are  intended  for  sale  at  a  later  stage,  bodies  or  persons 
responsible for the first marketing shall submit to the competent authorities of the MS where 
the take-over takes place: 

  Electronically  and  within  24  hours  after  completion  of  the  first  sale,  if  their  annual 

financial turnover is EUR 200 000 or more  

  Within 48 hours after the first sale, if their annual financial turnover is less than EUR 

200 000 

114   Art 76 CIR together with Annexes XIX and XX established specific rules and a risk-based methodology for the adoption 

of SP 

115   Art  77  CIR  together  with  Annexes  XXI  and  XXII  established  specific  rules  and  a  risk-based  methodology  for  the 

adoption of SP 

116   Art 90 and 91 CIR provide some rules about the content and format of the SN and take-over declarations. Art 146h CIR 
established details on the format sales notes data and take-over declarations data for exchange of sales related data. 

84 

 
                                                            
iv. Transport document 

Fisheries products landed, for which neither a sales note nor a take-over declaration has been 
submitted  and  which  are  transported  to  a  place  other  than  that  of  landing,  shall  be 
accompanied by a transport document drawn up by and responsible for  the transporter. The 
transporter  shall  submit  it  to  the  competent  authorities  of  the  MS  in  whose  territory  the 
landing has taken place and the authorities of the MS of destination, within 48 hours after the 
loading. The MS of first marketing may require further information from the MS of landing. 

The transporter shall be exempted from having the TD accompanying the fisheries products if 
the  TD  has  been  transmitted  electronically,  before  the  transport  begins,  to  the  competent 
authorities of the flag MS and the competent authorities of MS may grant exemptions from 
the obligation of TD if the fisheries products are transported within a port area or not more 
than 20 km from the place of landing. 

TD  can  be  replaced  by  a  copy  of  the  LD  pertaining  to  the  quantities  transported,  or  any 
equivalent document containing  the same level of information.  When there is  a transport  of 
fisheries products that have been declared as sold the transporter shall be able to prove with a 
document that a sales transaction has taken place117. 

5. MONITORING OF THE FISHING CAPACITY 
Art 38 CR states that MS shall be responsible for carrying out the necessary checks in order to 
ensure that the total capacity corresponding to the fishing licences, in Gross Tonnage (GT) 
and in kilowatts (kW), shall at any moment not be higher than the maximum capacity levels 
established for that MS.  

Art  40  CR  requires  MS  to  be  responsible  to  certifying  and  issue  engine  certificates  for 
propulsive engines that exceed 120 kW118. MS competent authorities shall officially certify119 
these  engines  as  not  being  capable  of  developing  more  maximum  continuous  engine  power 
than stated in the engine certificate120.  

Certified engine power121 must be stated in a vessel's fishing licence and it shall be prohibited 
to  use  a  propulsion  engine  if  such  engine  has  not  been  officially  certified  by  the  MS 
concerned or if exceeds the power established in the fishing licence. 

Art 41 CR requires MS to conduct verification of engine power following risk analysis and 
according  to  a  sampling  plan122.  Physical  verification  of  engine  power  is  only  required  in 
cases  where  risk  analysis  indicates  that  a  vessel's  actual  engine  power  is  greater  than  that 
stated on the fishing licence.  

117   Art  108-109  CIR  establish  measures  for  transport  inspections;  Module  5  for  inspection  of  a  transport  vehicle  is 
stablished in Annex XXVII of CIR. Art 146h CIR establish format of TD data for the exchange of sales related data.   
118   Except vessels using exclusively static gear or dredge gear, auxiliary vessels and vessels used exclusively in aquaculture 

(Art 40 CR). 

119   Rules  on  engine  power  certification  and  modification  of  engine  power  are  provided  on  Art  61  of  the  Implementing 
Control  Regulation  (CIR).  Art  62  and  63  CIR  provide  detailed  rules  for  establishing  sampling  plans  to  detect  under-
declaration of propulsion engine power and perform physical verifications. 

120   Art 90 CR considers as serious infringement the manipulation of an engine with the aim of increasing its power beyond 

the maximum continuous engine power according to the engine certificate. 

121   According to Art 4 CR ‘certified engine power’ means the maximum continuous engine power which can be obtained at 
the  output  flange  of  an  engine  according  to  the  certificate  issued  by  the  Member  State’s  authorities  or  classification 
societies or other operators assigned by them; 

122   Art. 109 CR considers engine power data mandatory for the automated cross-checking, analyses and verifications that 

MS shall perform. 

85 

 
                                                            
6. DATA MANAGEMENT AND SHARING AT EU LEVEL 
The data collected under the CR are fisheries activity data covering vessel position, logbook, 
landing, sales and transport, and are often referred to as control data. These data are collected 
by  MS  from  vessels  and  fisheries  operators  in  accordance  with  the  various  reporting 
obligations. The conditions for exchange, reporting and management of these data are set up 
in the following 3 articles of the CR: 

-  Art  33  requires  the  MS  to  register  all  relevant  data  and  report  every  month  to  the 
Commission  the  catches  and  effort  from  the  previous  month.  The  Commission  uses  these 
reports  (=  ACDR  reports)  to  monitor  the  consumption  of  fishing  opportunities  and  to  fulfil 
some of its international reporting obligations. 
-  Art  110  and116  give  the  Commission  the  right  to  access  and  download  control  data,  and 
requires MS to set up the conditions for Commission remote access to their data bases (which 
has not been done yet). 
- Art 111 sets up the conditions for exchange of data primarily between MS, but also with the 
Commission. 
Data  sets  dealt  with  under  these  articles  are  very  diverse,  ranging  from  tiny  reports  on  the 
whereabouts of individual fishing vessels to aggregated reports of monthly (yearly) catches of 
the  complete  fleet  of  a  country.  Depending  on  the  nature  of  the  data  set,  data  flows  are 
diverging:  

-  Source  data,  produced  by  the  vessel  (or  the  fishing  operator),  are  sent  from  the 
vessel/operator  to  the  flag  Member  State  authority  (FMC),  and  in  some  conditions 
transmitted  to  other  parties123.  These  data  are  VMS  positions,  logbook  data,  landing 
declarations, sales notes.  

-  Aggregated data,  i.e.  reports  compiled  from  multiple  vessel  data,  such  as  monthly  catch 
reports  (ACDR),  or  monthly  effort  reports.  These  are  sent  by  the  Member  State  to  the 
Commission, and possibly used for reporting to international parties. 

Exchanging  such  variety  and  quantity  of  data  requires  coordination  at  EU  level. In  order  to 
streamline  this,  an  Integrated  Fisheries  Data  Management  programme  (IFDM)  was  set  up. 
The  IFDM  programme  covers  not  only  fisheries  activity  data,  but  also  related  data  such  as 
vessel licences, fishing authorisations and quotas.  

The IFDM  programme  entails better  integration of the  DG  MARE control infrastructure, as 
well  as  standardisation  of  both  data  formats  and  data  exchange  technology  used  in  the 
European Commission, MS and other parties.  

The  first  pillar  of  this  standardisation  is  the  FLUX  data  standard  (Fisheries  Language  for 
Universal eXchange) defined in the UN/CEFACT context. The FLUX UN/CEFACT standard 
aims  at  defining  a  universal  and  efficient  data  exchange  "language"  compatible  with 
regulations and international requirements.  

The different data domains which are already covered by this FLUX UN/CEFACT standard 
are  Aggregated  Catch  Data  Reporting  (ACDR),  Vessel  Position  (VMS),  Master  Data 
Management (for codes), Fishing Activity (ERS), Sales and Vessel data. The implementation 
for fishing authorisations (LICENCE) is in progress.  

123   If the vessel for instance is fishing in the waters of another Member State, or operating in the territory of a Member State 
which is not the flag state, data are shared with the Member State(s) concerned by the operation through via a data 
exchange platform in the Commission. If t4he vessel is for instance fishing in external waters, data are sent to Member 
States and to the data exchange platform in the Commission and are automatically forwarded to the third parties by the 
Commission.  

86 

 
                                                            
The  second  pillar  of  the  IFDM  programme  is  a  Transportation  Layer  (FLUX-TL),  ensuring 
exchange of data between MS, Commission, SFPAs and RFMOs in an automated and secured 
manner.  The  European  Commission  is  providing  the  FLUX-TL  software  as  Open-Source 
Software for all MS and other parties to use. Currently, some of the applications still use the 
so-called  FIDES3  system  as  communication  framework  between  the  European  Commission 
and MS, but this is gradually being replaced by FLUX-TL for data exchange.  

7. CONTROL OF THE LANDING OBLIGATION 
No specific measures for remote control of the landing obligation. The only way to control it 
is by inspection at sea. 

8. MARKET  TRACEABILITY RULES 
Art  56  CR  establishes  that  each  MS  shall  be  responsible  for  controlling  on  its  territory  the 
application of the rules of the CFP at all stages of the marketing of fisheries and aquaculture 
products,  from  the  first  sale  to  the retail  sale, including  transport  and  ensure that  the  use  of 
fishery products below the applicable minimum conservation reference size that are subject to 
the landing obligation is restricted to purposes other than direct human consumption. 
MS shall ensure that all fisheries and aquaculture products are put into lots124 prior to the first 
sale;  these  lots125  shall  be  adequately  labelled  and  traceable  at  all  stages  of  production, 
processing and distribution, from catching or harvesting to retail stage126. 
Operators  shall  have  in  place  systems  and  procedures  to  identify  any  operator  from  whom 
they have been supplied with lots and to whom these products have been supplied.  
Art 58 CR provides the minimum labelling and information requirements for all lots and the 
information that must be available to the consumer127.  
MS may exempt small quantities of products sold directly from fishing vessels to consumers, 
provided that these do not exceed the value of 50€ per day. 

9. IUU [CATCH CERTIFICATE] 
The IUU Regulation introduces in  its Chapter 3 an  EU IUU Catch  Certification  scheme  for 
importation  and  exportation  of  fishery  products  with  respective  rules.  The  most  important  
"novelty"  (with  the  biggest  impact  on  MS  and  3rd  countries)  is  the  establishment  of  a 
requirement that fishery products falling under Chapter 03 and Tariff headings 1604 and 1605 
of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (with exception of exempted products listed in Annex I 
IUU  Regulation)  imported  into  the  EU  need  to  be  accompanied  by  a  catch  certificate  (CC) 
that  confirms  that  these  products  are  obtained  from  catches  which  have  been  made  in 
accordance with applicable laws, regulations and international conservation and management 
measures (Art. 12, 16, 2(8)). The CC has a defined format (Annex II of the IUU Regulation), 
is paper based, needs to be validated by the flag state of the fishing vessel/s which made the 
catches from which the products to be imported have been obtained and has to be submitted 
by  the  importer  to  the  competent  import  authorities  of  the  MS  of  import.  To  allow  timely 
import clearance on the basis of risk management, the CC needs to be submitted prior to the 

124   According  to  Art  4  CR  ‘lot’  means  a  quantity  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  of  a  given  species  of  the  same 
presentation  and  coming  from  the  same  relevant  geographical  area  and  the  same  fishing  vessel,  or  group  of  fishing 
vessels, or the same aquaculture production unit. 

125   Art. 67 CIR provides detailed information for the information on lot.s 
126   According to Art 13 CR the Council may decide on the obligation to use traceability tools such as genetic analysis and 

MS should have carried out pilot projects on traceability tools such as genetic analysis before 1 June 2013. 

127   Annex  XXVII  CIR  provide  with  the  minimum  information  required  for  completion  of  inspection  reports  on  market 

premises (Module 4). 

87 

 
 
 
                                                            
estimated arrival time of the products at the place of entry in the EU; deadlines for submission 
differ according to the means of transport of arrival.   
In  case  of  imports  of  products  processed  in  other  third  countries  than  the  flag  state,  the 
submission of the CC to MS authorities needs to be supplemented by a Processing Statement 
(PS)  (Annex  IV  of  the  IUU  Regulation)  with  endorsement  by  competent  authorities  of  the 
processing state of product description and quantities of unprocessed and processed products, 
confirming  that  the  processing  activity  took  place  in  that  country  and  the  final  processed 
products  stem  from  raw  material  accompanied  by  a  valid  CC  (Art.  14  (2)).  Photocopies  of 
CCs are allowed when only a part of the catch is processed (Art. 14 (c)ii)) 
Some  rules  of  further  import  and  export  scenarios  are  also  described  in  the  chapter  (e.g. 
indirect  importation,  transit  and  transhipment,  re-exportation  etc.),  which  are,  from 
experience, of less importance or impact on stakeholders.  
While  the  IUU  Regulation  provides  for  the  possibility  to  use  electronic  means  to  establish, 
validate or submit CCs and PS in the framework of administrative cooperation with flag states 
((Art. 12 (4), 20 (4)), it does not include a clear legal base for an EU IUU IT system with an 
obligation  to  use  it  (i.e.  in  all  MS,  the  EU  importer  should  submit  the  CC/PS  data 
electronically to MS authorities and the MS authorities should use the data in the system for 
its checks, verifications, decision, etc.).  
MS  authorities  are  competent  for  the  implementation  of  the  catch  certification  scheme,  i.e. 
ensuring  the  required IUU-related  import  and  export  controls  of  fishery  products  (including 
refusals),  to  efficiently  and  effectively  monitor  the  import  prohibitions  the  IUU  Regulation 
establishes for "IUU fishery products" (the latter being the responsibility of the Commission).   

10. EFCA FOUNDING REGULATION 
According to its Founding Regulation, the European Fisheries Control Agency is a European 
Union agency whose main mission is to promote the highest common standards for control, 
inspection  and  surveillance  under  the  CFP.  Its  primary  role  is  to  organise  coordination  and 
cooperation between national control and inspection activities so that the rules of the CFP are 
respected and applied effectively. 

The added value of the work of the Agency lies in its contribution to a European-wide level 
playing field for the fishing industry and in its contribution towards sustainable fisheries by 
enhancing compliance with existing conservation and management measures. 

The  Agency,  in  cooperation  with  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  and  the 
European  Maritime  Safety  Agency,  also  supports  the  national  authorities  carrying  out  coast 
guard functions. EFCA has its official seat in Vigo, Spain. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Annex 8: Stakeholders' description 

The objective of this annex is to provide more details about the different stakeholders which 
have been identified as being directly or indirectly affected by this initiative. 

Stakeholders' category  Part A: Who are the affected stakeholders? 

Fishing industry 
(i.e. fishermen 
processors, salesmen, 
vessel owners) 

this 

industry 

includes  fishermen,  processors  and 

The  fishing 
salesmen that are required to comply with the control rules.  
The  problems  described 
initiative  primarily  affect 
in 
fishermen  fishing  for  all  types  of  fishery  (i.e.  demersal,  pelagic 
and  other),  meaning  the  EU  fishing  fleet  from  the  23  coastal 
Member  States128.  For  processors  and  salesmen,  this  initiative 
extends to the 28 Member States. 
Based  on  data  reported  under  the  EU  fisheries  data  collection 
framework  (DCF),  around  84  420  vessels  would  be  potentially 
affected by this initiative129. In 2015, The combined gross tonnage 
(GT) was of 1.62 million tonnes and engine power of 6.44 million 
kilowatts  (kW).  Among  those  63  976  were  active  vessels,  of 
which  74%  were  classed  as  small-scale  coastal  vessels,  25%  as 
large-scale  and  remaining  1%,  distant-water  vessels.  The  EU 
inactive  fleet,  amounting  to  20  444  vessels,  represented  24%  of 
the total EU fleet in number, 9% of the gross tonnage and 14% of 
the engine power2.  
Direct  employment  generated  by  the  fleet  amounted  to  152  720 
fishers,  corresponding  to  114  863  full-time  equivalents  (FTEs). 
The  EU  fleet  spent  4.8  million  days  at  sea  and  landed  over  5 
million  tonnes  of  seafood  with  a  reported  value  of  €7  billion. 
Revenue  earned  by  the  EU  fishing  fleet  was  estimated  at  €7.27 
billion130.  The  amount  of  Gross  Value  Added  (GVA)  and  gross 
profit (all excl. subsidies) generated by the EU fishing fleet (excl. 
Greece) was €3.9 billion and €1.6 billion, respectively. 
Table  1  provides  a  detailed  overview  of  the  affected  fishing 
sector.  For  each  coastal  Member  State,  it  illustrates  the  total 
number  of  vessels,  the  vessel  tonnage,  the  engine  power,  the 
employment  (as  full-time  equivalent),  the  fishing  days,  the 
number of fishing trips, the volume and value of landings, and the 

128   (BE)  Belgium,  (BG)  Bulgaria,  (DK)  Denmark,  (DE)  Germany,  (EE)  Estonia,  (IE)  Ireland,  (EL)  Greece,  (ES)  Spain, 
(FR) France, (HR) Croatia, (IT) Italy, (CY) Cyprus, (LV) Latvia, (LT) Lithuania, (MT) Malta, (NL) Netherlands, (PL) 
Poland,  (PT)  Portugal,  (RO)  Romania,  (SI)  Slovenia,  (FI)  Finland,  (SE)  Sweden,  (UK)  United  Kingdom.  For 
completeness'  sake,  these  are  the  5  EU  Member  States  which  do  not  have  a  sea  border:  (CZ)  Czech  Republic,  (LU) 
Luxembourg, (HU) Hungary, (AT) Austria and (SK) Slovakia. 

129   Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (2017)  The  2017  Annual  Economic  Report  on  the  EU 
Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-12). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; ISBN 978-92-79-73426-7, doi: 
10.2760/36154, 492 pp. 

130   Revenue represents income from landings plus other income in 2015 (excluding Greece). 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Stakeholders' category  Part A: Who are the affected stakeholders? 

net profit. 
According to data collected under the 2014 DCF data call for the 
fish  processing  industry131,  the  sector  in  the  EU  comprised 
approximately 3500 enterprises with fish processing as their main 
activity.  This  accounts  for  a  total  income  around  €27.9  billion 
(98%  of  this  is  turnover),  more  than  €6  billion  in  GVA,  and 
employed around 120 thousand persons within the EU. 
Table  2  provides  a  detailed  overview  of  the  affected  processing 
sector.  For  each  coastal  Member  State,  it  illustrates  the  total 
number  of  enterprises,  the  total  number  of  employees,  the 
employment  (as  full-time  equivalent  per  enterprise),  the  Gross 
Value Added and the net profit. 
The  EU  is  a  major  market  for  seafood  and  considered  as  a  net 
importer  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products.  Consumers  spent 
€54.8 billion euro for buying fisheries and aquaculture products in 
2016. Since 2003, a general positive trend was recorded in almost 
all  Member  States.  Per  capita  fish  consumption  per  year  was  of 
25.1 kg132. 

Member  States  and  their  inspectors  are  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  administering  the  controls,  but  also  forming  an 
integral  part  of  the  design  of  the  controlling  systems  either 
through the Council of Ministers or via strategies agreed through 
the regular coordination meetings. 

The  European  Commission  and  its  inspectors  which  are 
responsible  for  monitoring  Member  State  compliance  of  the 
regulations. 
The  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  responsible 
for  coordinating 
joint  deployment  plans,  and  supporting 
exchanges  between,  and  capacity  building  within,  Member  State 
inspectorates respectively. 

affect 

initiative  would 

This 
non-governmental 
also 
organisations  (NGOs)  advocating  control  as  an  essential  tool  to 
ensure  compliance  with  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  thereby 
sustainable  management  of  fisheries.  Those  NGOs  include 
Birdlife Europe, CAPE-CFFA, ClientEarth, Environmental Justice 
Foundation,  Greenpeace,  Oceana,  The  Pew  Charitable  Trusts, 
Seas  At  Risk  and  WWF.  They  contributed  actively  in  different 
phases of the consultations.  

Member States 

EU institutions and 
bodies 

Non-governmental 
organisations 

Others 

Other groups affected by this initiative may include recreational 

131   Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (2014) The Economic Performance Report on the EU Fish 
Processing  (STECF-14-21).  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg;  ISBN  978-92-79-44714-3,  doi: 
10.2788/968527, 355 pp. 

132   European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Director-General  (2017)  The  EU  fish 
market. Highlights the EU in the world EU market supply consumption trade EU landings aquaculture production, 94 
pp. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Stakeholders' category  Part A: Who are the affected stakeholders? 

fishermen  and  non-EU  actors  (e.g.  importers  of  fish  products). 
Indirectly  it  may  affect  the  general  public  (chiefly  those 
consuming  fisheries  products  and  those  with  an  interest  in 
fisheries  and  the  marine  environment),  the  scientific  community, 
particularly  universities  and  research 
institutions,  and  also 
consultants and fisheries experts. 
The initiative may also affect the Advisory Councils (ACs) as set 
under  the  CFP133,  namely  the  Aquaculture  AC,  Baltic  Sea  AC, 
Black Sea AC, Long Distance AC, Market AC, Mediterranean Sea 
AC, North Sea AC, North-western waters AC, Outermost regions 
AC (not set up yet), Pelagic stocks AC and South-western waters 
AC.  The  Advisory  Councils,  which  include  representatives  of 
businesses,  environmental  NGOs  and  consumer  groups,  also 
contributed actively during the consultation process. 

133   See full list of Advisory Councils and relevant tasks Articles 43-45 of the CFP. 

91 

 
 
 
                                                            
Table 9: EU overview of the affected fishing sector (data from the 23 coastal Member States in 2015134). Total number of vessels, vessel tonnage 
(thousand GT), engine power (thousand kW), employment (as full-time equivalent, or FTE), fishing days (thousand day), number of fishing trips 
(thousand), volume of landings (thousand tonne), value of landings (million EUR) and net profit (million EUR). "-": no data was available.  

Member 
State 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

No vessels 

79 
1979 
7849 
905 
1851 
1534 
2717 
6911 
1478 
15624 
2048 
12426 
309 
151 
1039 
718 
873 
8205 
151 
169 
9686 
1298 
6420 

Vessel 
tonnage 
14.6 
6.4 
53.8 
3.6 
66.3 
5.9 
15.8 
171.9 
56.5 
74.7 
58.9 
164 
7.3 
53.6 
7.5 
125.8 
34 
100.3 
0.9 
0.6 
366.7 
30.8 
200.3 

Engine 
power 
47.6 
56 
429.7 
41.2 
208.2 
31.8 
155.7 
999.4 
130.1 
446.2 
179.2 
1014 
20.6 
57 
76.1 
266 
81.5 
367.7 
6 
8.5 
842.1 
167.9 
805.4 

FTE 

Fishing days 

406 
608 
2384 
794 
1570 
485 
358 
6865 
1202 
23431 
2522 
21459 
345 
463 
872 
1619 
2280 
8130 
44 
84 
30015 
792 
8135 

15.7 
22.7 
206.7 
65.2 
91.5 
151.6 
106 
418.3 
110.7 
- 
62 
1527 
16.3 
7.2 
23.3 
43.2 
68.7 
338.2 
3.7 
8.7 
1030.8 
73.4 
304 

No fishing 
trips 
4.3 
22.7 
205 
64.2 
71.7 
84.5 
102.8 
357.1 
33.3 
- 
39.2 
1435 
15.3 
4.5 
20.8 
28 
60.3 
320.6 
3.6 
6 
865.6 
67.6 
219.2 

Volume 
landings 
24.5 
8.3 
72.91 
1.48 
865.9 
59.3 
148.1 
518.3 
238.5 
- 
240.9 
192.2 
62.1 
82.2 
2.4 
330.5 
187.9 
183.4 
4.8 
0.2 
923.3 
202.7 
708.8 

Value 
landings 
82 
3.8 
60.92 
7.56 
440.3 
14.5 
33.6 
1147.7 
215.8 
- 
237.4 
894 
19.8 
62.4 
11.6 
375 
48.7 
351.9 
4.3 
1.3 
1885 
116 
1067.9 

Net profit 

2.9 
1.2 
-14.5 
-6.5 
106.1 
1.7 
-8.2 
97.1 
7.1 
- 
-14.8 
106.4 
5.8 
-23.9 
-0.9 
33.1 
5.6 
76.5 
2.7 
0.2 
217.5 
15.1 
188.2 

134   Data source: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (2017) The 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-12). Publications Office of the 

European Union, Luxembourg, 492 pp. Data collected under the Data Collection Framework (the 2017 call requested data). 

92 

 
 
                                                            
Member State 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

Total 
enterprises 
240 
10 
20 
4 
106 
61 
146 
295 
250 
147 
164 
537 
101 
33 
6 
84 
196 
180 
14 
15 
487 
223 
375 

Total 
employees 
2492 
252 
1365 
56 
3409 
1861 
930 
16184 
7010 
2330 
3342 
6197 
5781 
4451 
56 
3567 
15972 
6823 
780 
354 
18324 
2135 
19070 

FTE per 
enterprise 
9.2 
25.2 
61.6 
14 
28.3 
29.8 
5.4 
54.1 
26.7 
14 
16.3 
9.7 
53 
107.1 
8.8 
29.4 
77 
35 
55.7 
20.4 
35.7 
8.2 
47.6 

GVA 

Net profit 

206.9 
9.2 
10.5 
2.7 
293.9 
28.6 
44.3 
1087.4 
267.6 
50.1 
110.8 
394.2 
55.9 
61.3 
9.2 
136.9 
241.8 
421.6 
29.1 
10.2 
1276.5 
122.4 
1729.7 

70.2 
8.3 
-12.3 
-0.6 
78.2 
4.6 
5.6 
219.7 
-27.7 
-1.3 
18.9 
98.1 
16.3 
25.6 
8.0 
20.8 
47.5 
- 
25.8 
3.0 
- 
12.8 
1054.8 

Table 10: EU overview of the affected fish processing sector (data from the 23 coastal Member States in 
2012135. Total enterprises (number), total employees (number), Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) per enterprise, 
Gross Value Added (GVA, million EUR) and net profit (in million EUR). 

135   Data  source:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (2014)  The  Economic  Performance 
Report on the EU Fish Processing (STECF-14-21). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 355 
pp. Data collected under the Data Collection Framework (data call issued on August 2014). 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 9: Recommendations from the European Commission, other European 
Institutions and Bodies on the evolution of the Fisheries Control System 

This Annex presents an extract/summary of the recommendations on the evolution of the 
Fisheries  Control  System  given  by  the  European  Commission  (REFIT  Platform),  other 
EU  institutions  (namely  the  court  of  Auditors  and  the  Council)  and  European  Bodies 
(namely  EFCA  Administrative  Board)  during  the  period  2016-2017  following  in  depth 
assessment and evaluation of the current system. 

REFIT  Platform  Opinion  on  the  submission  by  the  Finnish  Government 
Stakeholder survey on the control of EU fisheries 

[extract,  please  note  that  only  the  text  directly  linked  to  the  revision  of  the  Fisheries 
Control System is below given] 

The  REFIT  Platform  has  considered  the  submission  from  the  Finnish  Government 
Stakeholder survey on the provisions concerning the control of EU fisheries.  

The  Stakeholders  group  recognises  the  need  to  ensure  a  proportionate  and  effective 
application  of  the  Fisheries  Control  Regulation  in  relation  with  vessels  and  in  that 
context,  welcomes  the  evaluation  process  and  the  publication  of  the  evaluation  Staff 
Working Document. A key objective of the current Control Regulation is to ensure that 
the  rules  underpinning  the  Commons  Fisheries  Policy  are  effectively  enforced  whilst 
avoiding any unnecessary administrative burdens. In this context, the stakeholder group 
notes the special report on the EU fisheries control system issued by the European Court 
of Auditors in 2007 in which it was noted that "the procedures for dealing with reported 
infringements  do  not  support  the  assertion  that  every  infringement  is  followed  up  and 
still less infringements attract penalties; even when penalties are imposed their deterrent 
effect is, on the whole, limited.” Such a situation risks undermining the level playing field 
and the sustainability of the fisheries regime.  

The  Government  group  recognises  that  certain  provisions  of  Regulation  No  1224/2009 
can  create  regulatory  burden  for  the  fisheries  administration  as  well  as  for  the  fishing 
vessels’ operators and other fish market operators.  

While a few Member States support the recommendations of the Stakeholder group, most 
Member States do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on the revision of this Regulation 
scheduled for the end for the end of 2017 and recommend that the submission, together 
with the Stakeholder group recommendations, is examined by the Commission during the 
revision process. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The special report of the Court of Auditors  

[extract, please note that only the recommendations directly linked to the revision of the 
Fisheries Control System are below given] 

ECA Recommendation 1 – Improving the reliability of information on fishing fleets 

In the context of any future amendment to the Control Regulation, and in order to 
improve  the  accuracy  of  information  of  fishing  capacity,  we  recommend  the 
Commission to include in its legislative proposal:  

detailed  rules  for  the  regular  documentary  and  on-the-spot  verifications  of  both 
gross  tonnage  (GT)  and  engine  power  (kW)  indicators  used  to  calculate  fishing 
capacity. 

ECA Recommendation 2 – Improving the monitoring of fisheries management measures 

In the context of any future amendment to the Control Regulation, and in order to 
improve the monitoring of activities of small fishing vessels, we recommend the 
Commission to include in its legislative proposal:  

(a)  the  removal  of  the  VMS  exemptions  for  vessels  between  12  and  15  metres 
long; 

(b) the requirement for the installation of smaller and cheaper localisation systems 
for vessels under 12 metres long. 

Recommendation 3 – Improving the reliability of fisheries data 

In  the  context  of  any  future  amendment  to  the  Control  Regulation,  and  in  order  to 
improve  the  completeness  and  reliability  of  fisheries  data,  we  recommend  the 
Commission to include in its legislative proposal: 

(g)  the  removal  of  the  Electronic  Reporting  System  and  electronic  declaration 
exemptions  for  vessels  between  12  and  15  metres  long  or  the  consideration  of 
alternative solutions;  

(h)  review  the  catch  data  reporting  obligations  of  the  Member  States  under 
Control Regulation, in order to include the details of fishing area, size of vessels 
and fishing gear. 

Recommendation 4 – Improving inspections and sanctions 

1.  In  order  to  improve  the  inspections,  in  the  context  of  any  future  amendment  to  the 
Control Regulation, we recommend the Commission to include in its legislative proposal  

(b) the mandatory use of the Electronic Inspection report System by the Member 
States  in  order  to  ensure  the  exhaustiveness  and  updating  of  their  national 
inspection results and to share the results of inspections with other Member States 
concerned. 

95 

 
 
 
2. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the system of sanctions, in the context of any 
future amendment to the Control Regulation, we recommend the Commission to include 
in its legislative proposal  

(e)  a  provision  foreseeing  a  system  to  exchange  data  on  infringements  and 
sanctions in cooperation with EFCA and the Member States. 

The Council conclusions on Court of Auditors report 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION  [extract,  please  note  that  only  the 
recommendations  directly  linked  to  the  revision  of  the  Fisheries  Control  System  are 
below given] 

[…] 

(4)  SHARES  the  Court's  assessment  that  the  design  and  the  implementation  of  an 
effective system of control is essential for the success of the Common Fisheries Policy, 
NOTES that the implementation of the Control Regulation is an ongoing process and that 
improvements are continuously being made, and ENCOURAGES Member States and the 
Commission to follow up on the Court's recommendations where appropriate; 

(5)  ACKNOWLEDGES  the  need  to  achieve  a  lasting  balance  between  fishing  fleet 
capacity  and  fishing  opportunities  to  maintain  fishing  sustainable  in  the  long  term, 
NOTES therefore the importance of having reliable information on the fishing capacity 
in  the  Union  fleet  register,  and  WELCOMES  the  Court's  recommendation  to  establish 
procedures to verify the accuracy of the information recorded in national fleet registers; 

[…] 

(7)  AGREES  that  good  management  measures  rely  on  the  proper  and  efficient 
monitoring  of  fishing  activities,  WELCOMES  the  Court's  assessment  that  fisheries 
management  measures  are  overall  correctly  implemented,  and  ENCOURAGES  the 
continuous  development  of  technology,  in  particular  with  regard  to  an  electronic 
reporting  system  and  cross  checking  of  data  across  the  relevant  Member  States,  to 
achieve  control  and  compliance  objectives,  reduce  administrative  burden  and  further 
increase cost efficiency.  

(8)  while  ACKNOWLEDGING  the  findings  of  the  Court  on  certain  deficiencies  in  the 
monitoring  of  small-scale  fishing  vessels,  UNDERLINES  the  need  to  find  a  balance 
between  the  benefits  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  and  the  costs  and  administrative 
burden  related  to  it,  especially  in  respect  to  small-scale  fishing  vessels,  therefore 
STRESSES the need of making the greatest possible use of existing monitoring systems 
and data sources. 

(9) NOTES that inspection activities and sanctions contribute to the compliance ensuring 
sustainable  fisheries  management,  the  creation  of  a  culture  of  compliance  and  the 
achievement  of  a  level  playing  field  in  the  long  term,  but  RECALLS  that  different 
sanction  practices  are  due  to  divergences  in  national  legal  systems  and  legal  traditions 
and  that  the  establishment  of  sanctions  is  exclusively  Member  States'  competence  and 

96 

 
 
 
ENCOURAGES  the  further  development  of  common  inspection  strategies  to  reinforce 
the level playing field and improve mutual access to relevant data.  

(10)  WELCOMES  the  Court's  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  Control 
Regulation.  RECALLING  in  this  context  the  report  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  and  evaluation  of 
Regulation  (EC)  1224/20094  the  Council  firmly  WELCOMES  the  Commission's 
initiative to review the control system, and POINTS on this occasion to the opportunity 
for improvement through reliable catch reporting, further simplification, the use of new 
technologies,  taking  into  account  costs,  added  value  for  control  objectives,  regional 
specificities and minimalizing administrative burden. 

The Resolution by the European Parliament: 

Proposals for improvement [extract, please note that only the one directly linked  to the 
revision of the Fisheries Control System are below given] 

The European Parliament, 

[…] 

25.  Is in favour of a simplification and improvement of Union legislation, as well as a 
reduction  in  the  administrative  burden  with  a  view  to  achieving  ‘better  lawmaking’,  in 
particular  through  a  limited  and  targeted  revision  of  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1224/2009, scheduled for and expected by 2017 at the latest […]; 

[…] 

29.  States  that  closer  cooperation  between  Member  States  would  be  a  way  towards 
further  harmonisation  of  controls;  stresses  the  importance  in  this  regard  of  the  expert 
group on compliance with the obligations under the Union’s fisheries control system; 

30.  Reminds the Commission of the need to create the legal and operative environment 
before implementing mandatory rules, thus avoiding paradoxical situations; 

31.  Considers  that  the  Commission  must  attend  to  uniform  and  accurate  transposition 
and  verify  the  state  of  implementation  of  the  existing  legislation,  for  example  by 
establishing  a  minimum  percentage  of  consignments  to  be  checked  by  each  Member 
State;  believes,  furthermore,  that  control  procedures  must  be  transparent,  even-handed 
and  standardised,  allowing  Member  States  to  be  put  on  an  equal  footing  as  regards 
controls  on  their  fishermen,  and  that  the  rules  on  control  should  be  simpler,  and  more 
comprehensive and consistent; 

32.  Advocates a strengthening of controls to prevent the importation of fish from illegal, 
unreported  and  unregulated  fisheries  by,  among  other  measures,  setting  up  national 
intelligence  teams  staffed  with  specialised  fishing  inspectors,  who  are  best  qualified  to 

97 

 
 
 
 
detect  risks,  and  establishing  a  minimum  percentage  of  consignments  that  must  be 
checked; 

33.  Believes there is a need for the collection, management and use of good-quality data 
regarding  the  landing  obligation,  in  order  to  control  and  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the 
implementation  of the landing obligation and to bring data collection into  line with the 
requirements resulting from the revised CFP; 

[…] 

37.  Points out that in certain regions basins are managed jointly with countries outside 
the EU, and calls for cooperation between Member States and non-member countries to 
be intensified; 

38.  Believes  that  Member  States,  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency,  and  the 
Commission need to work in closer cooperation and coordination; 

[…] 

43.  Suggests  that  the  idea  of  an  EFCA  electronic  registry  (EFCA  single  desk)  be 
examined,  with  ready-to-print  or  electronic  models  for  inspections  and  for  the 
centralisation of inspection reports; notes that this EFCA electronic registry could also be 
used for receiving and centralising the capture certificates issued by Member States and 
third countries; 

44.  Proposes  that  the  public  communication  systems  used  by  control  agencies  be 
improved, and stresses the importance of periodically disseminating the work carried out 
and the results obtained and providing information on a permanent basis about the rules 
applied to fish resources, such as minimum sizes and temporal and spatial closures; 

45.  Stresses  the  necessity  to  strengthen  the  role  of  the  EFCA,  particularly  its  budget, 
competences  and  human  resources;  suggests  revising  the  conditions  of  intervention 
referred  to  in  Articles  94  and  95  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/2009  and,  in 
particular,  giving  it  the  right  to  intervene  in  respect  of  fishery  resources  which  are 
overexploited and those which have not reached the maximum sustainable yield (MSY); 

46.  Stresses  the  importance  of  reinforcing  and  strengthening  controls,  especially  in 
Member  States  that  have  so  far  demonstrated  poor  implementation  of  the  Control 
Regulation, in order to combat illegal fishing, to comply with the rules of the CFP and to 
strengthen the quality of the data obtained; 

47.  Recalls the importance  of having the capacity to  share data in real time, especially 
during  control  operations  carried  out  by  the  Agency  in  conjunction  with  the  Member 
States and coordinated by the Agency through joint deployment plans; 

48.  Stresses the importance of increasing the presence of the EFCA close to the Member 
States, including the Outermost Regions; 

98 

 
 
 
49.  Suggests that at least two representatives of the European Parliament be included on 
the  Management  Board  of  the  Agency,  on  which  there  are  already  six  representatives 
from the Commission and one from each Member State, this representation to have parity 
of composition (equal numbers of women and men) and to be appointed by Parliament's 
Committee on Fisheries from among its members; 

50.  Recommends expanding the controls – for example extending monitoring – to cover 
the  entire  production  chain,  and  assigning  responsibility  for  control  at  sea  to  a  single 
administrative  body, in order to  avoid  an overlapping  of controls which wastes human, 
logistic, and financial resources and causes confusion and unnecessary pressure on those 
operating  in  the  fisheries  sector;  in  addition,  calls  for  formal  collaboration  between  the 
institutions  of  the  Member  States  so  that  the  entire  fish  production  chain  can  be 
effectively controlled; 

51.  Asks the Commission to determine whether linking penalty points to fishing licences 
is appropriate; stresses that under this system points are transferred with the licence when 
the  vessel  is  sold,  which  can  reduce  the  value  of  vessels  in  some  cases  and  may  thus 
prevent their resale, for example to young fishermen wishing to start up in the business; 

[…] 

54.  Takes  the view that controls based  on risk assessment should be based on a  list  of 
transparent, specific, and measurable minimum criteria defined at European level; 

55.  Calls  for  a  standardisation  of  sanctions  while  keeping  them  at  a  level  that  is 
proportional  and  non-discriminatory  and  that  acts  as  a  deterrent;  prefers  economic 
sanctions,  including  temporary  suspensions  of  activity,  to  penal  sanctions,  but  also 
considers  that,  as  provided  for  in  Article  17  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013, 
preference  should  be  given  to  incentives  for  fishermen  who  comply  with  CFP  rules  in 
order to prevent infringements; 

56.  Recalls that it is the Member States that have responsibility for sanctions and that the 
European Union is not legally able to impose standardisation thereof via Regulation (EC) 
No  1224/2009;  points,  however,  to  the  importance  of  the  points  system  in  providing  a 
framework  for  sanctions,  and  calls  on  the  Member  States  to  take  the  initiative  for  an 
extensive standardisation of sanctions, in particular penal ones, in order to put an end to 
the inequities existing at present; 

[…] 

59.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to consider the development of 
a  harmonised  minimum-level  penalty,  applicable  to  serious  infringements  and/or 
repeated illegal behaviour; 

60.  Advocates  imposing  harsher  sanctions  for  illegal,  unreported  and  unregulated 
fishing; 

[…] 

99 

 
 
 
62.  Considers  that  the  interpretation  of  some  provisions,  which  lead  to  a  penalty  for 
exceeding the limit for incidental catches without even taking into account the absence of 
negligence  or  intent  when  engaging  in  lawful  conduct,  clearly  conflicts  with  the 
fundamental principles of the European Union, which are enshrined in Article 6 TEU as 
primary law; 

63.  Calls  on  the  Commission  to  lay  down  guidelines  that  can  be  readily  applied  and 
understood  in  order  to  prevent  unequal  treatment  between  Member  States,  especially 
where, by reporting by-catches voluntarily, fishing operators show that they have acted in 
good faith and that the catches were completely fortuitous; 

64.  Takes  the  view  that  helping  actors  invest  in  modern  technology  and  equipment 
compatible from one Member State to the other and easily updatable will make controls 
fairer, more balanced and more efficient; 

65.  Encourages the establishment of funding mechanisms to increase the use of low-cost 
technologies  to  enable  voluntary  control  and  increase  monitoring  and  safety  of 
fishermen, especially in small-scale artisanal fisheries; 

66.  Stresses  the  importance  of  electronic  technologies  (electronic  reporting  and 
electronic  monitoring  systems)  which  represent  a  potentially  cost-effective  means  to 
widen observation of activities at sea; 

67.  States its opposition to any mandatory video surveillance system on board; 

68.  Calls  the  attention  of  the  Commission  to  the  fact  that  the  use  of  new  earth-
observation  technologies,  such  as  Sentinel  satellites,  would  be  of  benefit  in  fisheries 
control; 

69.  Recommends  that  equivalent  controls  be  applied  to  imported  fishery  products,  to 
shore  fishing  and  to  recreational  fishing,  as  well  as  to  the  EU  fleet  fishing  in  non-EU 
waters and to non-EU countries’ fleets fishing in EU waters so as to ensure that the entire 
European market has an equivalent level of access; proposes that data exchange be made 
mandatory in connection with illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU); 

71.  Recommends  ensuring  the  continued  existence,  notably  through  EMFF  funding,  of 
fish auctions vital to territories, as these contribute to transparency and traceability, and 
facilitate fisheries control; 

72.  Supports the inclusion of the impact of recreational fisheries in the revised Control 
Regulation; 

73.  Requests  the  development  of  a  monitoring,  information-transfer  and  data-analysis 
system  which  is  compatible  throughout  the  Union;  further  requests  that  it  fall  to  the 
Commission  to  set  the  framework  for  the  exchange  of  data  and  information,  in 
accordance  with  the  data  protection  provisions  in  force;  stresses  that  a  transparent 
framework  for  the  exchange  of  data  and  information  is  key  to  ascertaining  whether  a 
level playing field exists; 

100 

 
 
 
74.  Stresses  that  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  must  be  accompanied  by 
appropriate flexibility with regard to its control, as the fundamental changes imposed on 
fisheries  by  this  obligation  should  be  taken  into  account,  particularly  as  regards  multi-
species  fisheries;  reiterates  the  importance  of  progressively  applying  sanctions  and  the 
points  system  in  the  event  of  serious  infringements  linked  to  non-compliance  with  the 
landing obligation, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/812 on implementation of 
the landing obligation; 

75.  Stresses  that  information  on  whether  and  how  Member  States  are  sanctioning 
different  types  of  infringements,  and  whether  sanctions  are  applied  consistently, 
regardless of a vessel's flag, must be made available to stakeholders and the public, while 
fully respecting the privacy of those involved; 

The EFCA Administrative Board recommendations following the results of its five 
years external evaluation 

The  Administrative  Board  issues  the  following  recommendations  [extract,  please  note 
that  only  the  recommendations  directly  linked  to  the  revision  of  the  Fisheries  Control 
System are below given] 

Regulation (EC) No 768/2005: 

While most of the suggestions made in the evaluation report can be implemented within 
the  current  legal  framework,  reflections  could  useful  begin  on  a  review  of  the  above 
Regulation, taking into account, among others, the following elements: 

  A review of the Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (Control Regulation); 

  The alignment of EFCA's mission and tasks with recent and future developments 
in  the  CFP,  notably  the  landing  obligation,  regionalisation,  measures  to  combat 
IUU fishing and the external dimension of the CFP. 

101 

 
 
 
 
Annex 10: List of stakeholders who sent written contributions  

Member States  

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

The Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Advisory Councils 

Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC) 

Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) 

North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) 

North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) 

Pelagic Advisory Council (PelAC) 

South Western Waters Advisory Council (SWWAC) 

EU Organisations and Associations 

Aquamind 

102 

 
 
 
Swedish Fishermen's Producer Organisation (SFPO) 

Europêche 

EU Fish Processors and Traders Associations (AIPCE-CEP) 

European Anglers Alliance 

European Fishing Tackle Trade Association 

International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities (IFSUA) 

National Associations 

Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins (France) 

Federación  Nacional  de  Asociaciones  Provinciales  de  Empresarios  Detallistas  de 
Pescados  y Productos Congelados (FEDEPESCA) (Spain) 

PESCAGALICIA (Spain) 

Environmental NGOs 

Birdlife Europe 

Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CAPE-CFFA) 

ClientEarth 

Fundacion Rendemento Economico Minimo Sostible e Social 

Environmental Justice Foundation 

Greenpeace 

International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities 

Oceana 

OurFish 

The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Seas At Risk 

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) 

103