COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 control
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) 279 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 control  {COM(2018) 368 final} - {SEC(2018) 267 final} - {SWD(2018) 280 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSEMENT 

Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the 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 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 
The current EU fisheries control system was designed prior to the reformed Common Fisheries Policy 
(CFP) and as such it is not coherent with it. Lack of action in this respect would seriously undermine 
compliance  with  the  CFP  and  fulfilment  of  its  objectives.  In  addition,  the  system  is  nowadays 
outdated,, mainly as still largely paper-based. As a result, it lacks effectiveness and efficiency, as was 
widely recognised and highlighted by the four European Institutions (Commission, Council, European 
Parliament and Court of Auditors), which all pointed at the need to revise the framework. The REFIT 
exercise  carried  out  by  the  Commission  identified  the  following  underlying  drivers:  a)  Lack  of 
measures  to  control  provisions  of  the  reformed  CFP,  lack  of  synergies  with  other  policies;  b) 
Complexity of the legislative framework and ambiguity of legal provisions;  c) Inadequate provisions 
for fisheries data; d) Enforcement rules not deterrent enough. The stakeholders affected by the initiative 
are: fishery operators, public authorities in Member States, the Commission and the European Fisheries 
Control Agency. 
What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 
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 and fulfilment of its objectives.  
The specific objectives are to: 1) Bridge the gaps with the CFP and with other EU policies; 2) Simplify 
the  legislative  framework  and  reduce  unnecessary  administrative  burden;  3)  Improve  availability, 
reliability  and  completeness  of  fisheries  data  and  information,  in  particular  of  catch  data,  and  allow 
exchange and sharing of information; and 4) Remove obstacles that hinder the development of a culture 
of compliance and the equitable treatment of operators within and across Member States. 
What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  
The CFP and its control is an area of exclusive EU competence pursuant to Article 3(d) of the Treaty. 
Action  at  EU  level  is  required  by  the  European  Institutions  and  strongly  supported  by  stakeholders, 
including Member States, insofar as it adds value compared to possible diversified national approaches 
by ensuring a harmonised control framework of the CFP provisions, by contributing to a level playing 
field among EU fishermen and ultimately by promoting an EU-wide culture of compliance. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  
Three  policy  options  were  analysed  through  the  Impact  Assessment  process:  (0)  The  Baseline  ;  (1) 
Targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control Regulation; (2) Targeted amendments of the Fisheries 
Control  System  (in  particular  Regulations  on:  Fisheries  Control,  Illegal,  Unreported  and  Unregulated 
Fishing and European Fisheries Control Agency). Option 2 shows markedly better performance overall 
compared to the other options and is the preferred one. This option would: 1) Ensure coherence with 
the reformed CFP; 2) Ensure a future-proof control system; 3) Simplify the legislative framework and 
decrease  unnecessary  administrative  burden;  4)  Increase  the  culture  of  compliance  with  the  CFP;  5) 
Ensure  equal  treatment  of  operators;  6)  Improve  quality,  exchange  and  sharing  of  fisheries  data;  7) 

 
 
 
 
Improve  scientific  data  for  stock  assessment;  8)  Increase  synergies  with  other  policies;  9)  Increase 
competitiveness of European industry; 10) More than double each euro invested in control as revenue 
for  the  EU  economy;  11)  Increase  creation  of  new  jobs  in  ICT;  12)  Boost  investments  in  new 
technologies  while  saving  157M€  over  a  five  years  period  compared  to  the  baseline;  13)  Result  in 
faster improvement of status of the stocks and thus in increased profitability of the vessels concerned 
and wages of the fishermen. 
Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  
The  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  consulted,  including  Member  States,  strongly  supported  or  had  a 
preference towards Option 2. None of the stakeholders supported no policy change (the baseline). 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       
Positive environmental impacts would encompass: reduction of overfishing, elimination of discards at 
sea, healthier fish stocks and proper control of marine protected areas. 
Main  socio-economic  benefits  include:  increased  wages  and  competitiveness  of  fishing  industry, 
especially for the small fleet; promotion of job creation (especially in ICT); improved compliance with 
the CFP and equal treatment of  fishers. In  addition, the preferred Option is  expected to  simplify and 
drastically reduce the administrative burden of the current system, with cost savings estimated at 157 M 
€  over  5  years  compared  to  the  baseline.  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. 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       
The 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. Member 
States  authorities  would  also  benefit  from  cost  savings  under  this  option  through  simplification  and 
inter-operability.  Compliance  costs  will  concern  the  monitoring  of  the  fishing  capacity  (5.1  M€  for 
businesses, partially compensated by 4.2 M€ savings for the authorities) and the control of the landing 
obligation (7.2 M€ investments). Total investments in ICT would amount to 134.6 M€ over 5 years, but 
be partially compensated by recurrent cost savings of 127.3 M€ over the same period. 
No negative social or environmental impacts are expected as a result of the preferred option. 
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 
There would be minimal costs on businesses, which would be eligible for funding under the European 
Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  while  the  same  businesses  would  be  the  recipient  of 
environmental,  economic  and  social  benefits.  In  addition,  any  additional  burden  for  small  operators 
(small-scale fishermen) will be avoided by the introduction of easy and cost-effective reporting systems 
for fishery data, taking advantage of affordable and widely available mobile phones technologies. Also 
these systems would be eligible for funding under the EMFF. Furthermore, the introduction of new ICT 
will boost innovation and provide new avenues for job creation for SMEs and starts-up.  
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 
Member  States  would  need  to  develop  ICT  solutions  to  complete  digitisation  of  the  fisheries  data 
systems  and  to  manage  the  new  data  flow  (the  costs  are  reimbursable  under  the  EMFF)  and  to 
implement the new digital system for imported fishery products from third countries (electronic catch 
certificate). 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  
Non-commercial fishers would generally be subject to stricter rules than today, requiring in particular 
reporting  of  catches.  Citizens  will  benefit  from  better  and  more  reliable  information  on  fisheries 
products and improved security of seafood supplies. 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  

D. Follow up 

 
 
The  current  Fisheries  Control  Regulation  already  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  assess  its 
implementation  every  5  years,  based  on  reports  submitted  by  Member  States.  This  rule  will  be 
maintained.