REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy as required under Article 118 for the period 2015-2019
Date: 2021-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, European Fisheries Control Agency, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing industry, international waters, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.6.2021  COM(2021) 316 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy as required under Article 118 for the period 2015-2019  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Union 
control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy as 
required under Article 118 for the period 2015-2019 

1.  Introduction and background 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1224/20091  (‘the  Control  Regulation’)  provides  for  an  EU 
fisheries-control system to ensure compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy2 
(CFP). Together with the regulation on illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing3 and 
with the Regulation on the sustainable management of external fleet4, the Control Regulation 
lays down rules and measures for control, inspection, and enforcement based on a global and 
integrated approach. 

Stakeholders involved in the governance and implementation of the fisheries-control system 
comprise  the  Member  States,  the  European  Commission,  the  European  Fisheries  Control 
Agency  (EFCA)5  and  commercial  operators.  The  Control  Regulation  applies  to  the  whole 
chain of fishing activities from the net to the plate. 

This document responds to the legal obligation for the Commission to report to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the application of the Control Regulation in the Member States 
every 5 years (Article 118(2)). 

In 2017, the Commission adopted the first report on the implementation and evaluation of the 
Control  Regulation  covering  the  first  5  years  (2010-2014)  since  its  entry  into  force6.  The 
evaluation showed that the Control Regulation is essential for achieving the CFP’s objectives 
and for enforcing conservation and management measures. The principles and  provisions of 
the  Control  Regulation  tackle  issues  that  have  in  the  past  led  to  extensive  overfishing  and 
poor  compliance  with  fisheries  rules.  The  analysis  in  the  first  report  also  showed  that 
Member States had implemented the main provisions of the Control Regulation but due to the 
complexity  of  the  rules  and  the  time  needed  for  adaptation,  implementation  of  some  of  the 
provisions was in some cases delayed. The report also concluded that, although the Control 
Regulation helped to improve both the fisheries-control system and compliance with the CFP 
rules,  it  was  not  entirely  fit  for  purpose  (see  Section  3.1).  To  address  the  identified 
shortcomings,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  in  2018  to  revise  the  EU’s  fisheries-

1  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1–50  
2   OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61 
3  OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1–32 
4  OJ L 347, 28.12.2017, p. 81-104 
5 
6  COM(2017)192 final 

https://www.efca.europa.eu. 

1 

 
                                                           
control system7. This proposal is currently under negotiation with the Council and European 
Parliament. 

This  second  report  provides  an  overview  of  the  application  of  the  core  provisions  of  the 
Control Regulation for the period 2015-2019. 

The information presented in this document relies on: (i) the data reported by Member States 
under  Article  118  of  the  Control  Regulation8;  (ii)  Commission  observations  derived  from 
audits,  verifications  and  inspections  carried  out  according  to  Title  X  of  the  Control 
Regulation; (iii) information from following up on these audits, verifications and inspections; 
(iv) discussions held as part of the expert groups on fisheries control and on compliance; and 
(v) other dedicated activities (e.g. workshops, meetings). 

2.  Implementation of the Control Regulation by Member States 

Member  States  are  responsible  for  ensuring  the  correct  implementation  of  the  fisheries-
control  system.  In  2015-2019,  Member  States  continued  to  improve  implementation  of  the 
Control  Regulation.  Improvements  were  made  in  areas  where  shortcomings  had  been 
identified in the previous reporting period, notably: (i) the sanctioning and point systems; (ii) 
monitoring  of  small  vessels;  (iii)  reporting  of  catch  data  from  small  vessels;  and  (iv) 
exchange  of  data.  Although  these  improvements  are  welcome,  the  digitisation  of  fisheries 
data remains incomplete, and more efforts are needed in this field. Similarly, although there 
were improvements in Member States’ sanctioning systems  (including by the establishment 
of  point  systems),  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  the  effective  and  equal  application  and 
enforcement  of  these  measures.  Greater  detail  on  these  points  is  provided  in  the  sections 
below. 

2.1. Conditions for access to waters and resources and  control of fleet management  

To  ensure  that  fishing  activities  are  undertaken  in  line  with  the  rules  of  the  CFP,  these 
activities  require  a  fishing  licence  and,  when  specific  conditions  apply,  a  fishing 
authorisation.  The  total  number  of  valid  fishing  licences  reported  by  Member  States 
decreased slightly in 2015-2019, from almost 96 000 valid fishing licences in 2015 to about 
91 000 in 2019. During this period, Member States reported more than 1 500 fishing licences 
being  temporarily  suspended  and  more  than  1 100  permanently  withdrawn.  The  number  of 
fishing authorisations increased from 30 500 in 2015 to more than 38 500 in 2019, with 154 
being temporarily suspended and 187 permanently withdrawn. 

To  ensure  effective  control,  Member  States  must  operate  a  vessel-monitoring  system 
(VMS),  and  fishing  vessels  with  a  length  overall  (LOA)  of  12  metres  or  more  must  be 
equipped  with  a  device  enabling  competent  authorities  to  automatically  locate  and  identify 
them. However, some vessels might be exempt from this requirement if they: (i) are between 

7  COM(2018)368 final 
8  An extensive and detailed summary of data reported by Member States is provided in the Synopsis Report 
of data reported by Member States according to Article 118 of the Control Regulation, available at Circabc 
(europa.eu) together with the original reports submitted 

2 

 
                                                           
12 metres and 15 metres  LOA and operate exclusively within the territorial  seas of the flag 
Member State; or (ii) never spend more than 24 hours at sea from the time of departure to the 
time of return to port. Analysis of reported data by Member States suggests that although this 
derogation  is  still  widely  applied,  VMS  coverage  for  vessels  between  12 metres  and 
15 metres LOA increased from about 35% in 2015 to 40% in 2019. 

The control of engine power is a key element of the EU’s fisheries-control system. Engine 
power  and  the  gross  tonnage  of  fishing  vessels  are  the  two  capacity  indicators  regulated 
through the entry/exit scheme9. They are also the two capacity indicators for which the CFP 
sets  ceilings.  For  these  reasons,  the  management  of  fleet  capacity,  including  the  entry/exit 
scheme  for  the  EU’s  fishing-fleet  register10,  depends  on  accurate  and  reliable  recording  of 
these  two  parameters.  The  accuracy  of  declarations  of  engine  power  by  Member  States  is 
crucial for ensuring that the capacity limits of their fleets are not exceeded and therefore the 
EU’s fleet capacity remains consistent with a fishing effort that avoids overfishing of stocks. 
In 2019, the Commission published a study on the verification of engine power in 15 Member 
States11.  The  study  revealed  non-compliance  to  be  widespread  across  all  Member  States, 
areas, and vessel types included in the study. The findings raise questions about the overall 
compliance  of  Member  States  with  the  fishing-capacity  ceilings  and  with  the  entry/exit 
scheme. The study also confirmed that the current provisions on the control of engine power 
are  not  entirely  fit  for  purpose.  Furthermore,  the  physical  testing  of  engine  power  is 
expensive  and  cumbersome,  both  for  authorities  and  for  operators.  This  physical  testing  is 
also often ineffective, as the engine output may be discreetly altered during or after testing. 
Therefore,  it  seems  appropriate  to  move  to  a  system  of  ‘continuous  engine  monitoring’  at 
least  for  certain  fleet  segments.  Moving  to  such  a  system  was  already  proposed  by  the 
Commission in its proposal for a revised fisheries-control system. 

To better monitor fleet data and fleet capacity at EU level, the Commission updated the EU’s 
fleet register12,13. The register includes a database that is partly publicly available. 

2.2. Catch reporting tools, weighing and traceability 

To facilitate effective monitoring, EU fishing vessels of 10 metres LOA or more are obliged 
to keep a fishing logbook. For vessels of 12 metres LOA or more this must be in electronic 
form (e-logbook), although an exemption may permit certain vessels between 12 metres and 
15 metres LOA to use a paper-logbook14. The data show a general trend of decreasing use of 

9  OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 1–7  
10  OJ L 34, 9.2.2017, p. 9–177 
11  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a867cbac-8e90-11e9-9369-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-99423821. 

12   For the general public, an excel file with data from the application was regularly posted on Europa since 

June 2018. The web application visible today was released in December 2019. 

13  https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa/index_en. 
14  Member States may exempt vessels of between 12 metres and 15 metres LOA that: (a) operate exclusively 
within the territorial seas of the flag Member State; or (b) never spend more than 24 hours at sea from the 
time of departure until their return to port. 

3 

 
                                                           
the  paper-logbook,  although  its  use  is  still  widespread.  The  number  of  vessels  above 
12 metres LOA that had an e-logbook rose from 4 800 in 2014 to almost 8 700 in 2019. This 
increase  is  thanks  to  the  increased  coverage  of  e-logbooks  in  vessels  of  between  12 metres 
and  15 metres,  where  e-logbook  coverage  increased  from  30%  to  40%.  In  addition,  the 
percentage of vessels between 10 metres and 12 metres LOA that used e-logbooks rose from 
roughly 2% in 2014 to 11% in 2019. 

Monitoring  of  catches  for  vessels  below  10 metres  LOA  must  be  carried  out  by  sampling 
plans,  paper-logbooks,  or  sales  notes.  The  proportion  of  vessels  subject  to  each  of  these 
monitoring  methods  was  quite  stable  across  the  reporting  period,  with  a  few  percentage 
points  in  variation  across  the  years.  Sampling  plans  was  the  most  frequently  used  type  of 
monitoring method. In addition to these forms of control, some Member States introduced e-
logbooks,  and  while  the  reported  numbers  of  such  vessels  are  admittedly  quite  small,  they 
increased from about 100 in 2015 to 450 in 2019. 

Because  paper  reporting  is  considered  to  be  ineffective  and  to  generate  extensive 
administrative burden15, the Commission’s proposal for a revised EU fisheries-control system 
aims to fully digitise reporting across all fleet segments, in line with the EU digital strategy16. 
The measures proposed in this field at EU level are in line with available technologies. The 
proposed measures also aim at avoiding distortions to the level playing field that might arise 
if  Member  States  adopt  these  new  technologies  unilaterally.  In  this  context,  in  December 
2018, the Commission organised a workshop on digital tools for small-scale fisheries17. The 
workshop covered: (i) digital tools for vessel monitoring; (ii) digital tools for catch reporting; 
and  (iii)  a  session  focused  on  the  European  Maritime  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)  as  a  funding 
mechanism.  The  workshop  provided  an  opportunity  to  share:  (i)  knowledge;  (ii)  best 
practices;  and  (iii)  trends  and  developments  on  digital  solutions  for  monitoring  and 
controlling  small-scale  fisheries.  Overall,  participants  in  the  workshop  were  in  favour  of 
technological  innovation,  although  they  raised  reservations  about  costs  and  economies  of 
scale  in  equipping  a  larger  proportion  of  the  EU  fleet  with  digital  tools.  On  this  issue,  the 
Commission proposal for the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) 
2021-202718,19  supports  the  purchase  and  installation  of  equipment  for  compulsory  vessel 
tracking and electronic reporting systems on small-scale coastal fishing vessels20 with a 100% 
aid-intensity rate.  

Concerns  remain  about  traceability,  even  though  there  has  been  progress  in  this  area  and 
Member States have sought different solutions to ensure the traceability of fisheries products. 

15  SWD(2018)280 final 
16  Shaping Europe’s digital future | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu). 
17  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/workshop-digital-tools-small-scale-fisheries-brussels-4-5-

december-2018-2018-11-30_en 

18  COM(2018)390 final 
19  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/commissioner-sinkevicius-welcomes-provisional-political-

agreement-european-maritime-fisheries_en 

20  Small-scale coastal fishing is carried out by fishing vessels below 12 metres LOA and not using towed 

fishing gears. 

4 

 
                                                           
There are gaps in the information chain due to the continued use of both paper and electronic 
information as well as the lack of harmonised data standards. These gaps have  not yet been 
resolved. Implementation of the existing traceability rules under the Control Regulation has 
proved  to  be  a  challenge  for  many  Member  States.  This  has  been  due  to:  (i)  the  lack  of 
coordination between different  authorities in  charge of controls in  the supply  chain; (ii) the 
differing interpretations of the applicability of traceability provisions; and (iii) confusion over 
the traceability provisions of the General Food Law21. These findings confirm the outcome of 
the  previous  evaluation  of  the  Control  Regulation,  which  attributed  the  shortcomings  in  its 
implementation to the lack of clarity in the current legislative framework. These findings are 
also further confirmation of the relevance of the Commission proposal to revise the fisheries-
control  system.  To  help  tackle  these  issues,  in  October  2019,  the  Commission  organised  a 
workshop  on  the  traceability  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products22.  The  workshop 
covered: (i) the proposed changes to the traceability requirements in the ongoing revision of 
the Control Regulation; and (ii) presentations of different systems and technologies currently 
being implemented by Member States and industry in the area of fishery-product traceability. 
Key  discussion  points  raised  in  the  workshop  included  the  importance  of  interoperability 
between systems and how to ensure efficient implementation for the benefit of all concerned, 
i.e. authorities, operators and final consumers.  

Quota  management  is  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  fisheries  management  under  the  CFP.  The 
accurate weighing, registration and traceability of fishery products is essential: (i) for control 
purposes;  (ii)  for  the  monitoring  of  quota  uptake;  and  (iii)  to  ensure  the  long-term 
sustainability of fishing activities. Commission audits and verifications, conducted in selected 
Member  States23,  have  highlighted  significant  shortcomings  in  the  weighing,  registration 
and traceability of catches. These deficiencies have: (i) undermined the level playing field in 
the application of rules between Member States; (ii) facilitated overfishing; and (iii) resulted 
in the underreporting of catches. All three problems jeopardise the objectives of the CFP. The 
Commission  has  taken  action  to  address  the  identified  shortcomings  (see  Section  3.3)  and 
will  continue  to  evaluate  Member  States’  application  of  the  rules  on  weighing,  catch 
registration and traceability.  

21  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1–24  
22  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/traceability-fisheries-products-know-what-you-buy-2019-

10-10_en 

23  Denmark, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands. 

5 

 
                                                           
2.3. Specific control inspection programmes (SCIPs)  

The specific control and inspection programmes (SCIPs) adopted by the Commission for 
five EU sea basins24 have been implemented by Member States at national and regional level. 
The  EFCA  has  assured  operational  coordination  of  inspection  activities  at  regional  level 
through  the  joint  deployment  plans  (JDPs).  The  total  number  of  inspections  carried  out  as 
part  of  the  JDPs  almost  doubled  from  2015  to  2019,  with  more  than  32 000  inspections 
carried  out  in  2019.  The  percentage  of  suspected25  infringements  for  both  sea-based 
inspections and land-based inspections also doubled in the same period, with averages across 
years  and  sea  basins  ranging  from  2%  to  more  than  24%26.  The  large  majority  of  the 
suspected infringements identified during the JDP sea- and land-based inspections related to 
misreporting  of  catches  and  non-compliance  with  rules  on  technical  measures27.  In  2019, 
suspected  infringements  related  to  misrecording  accounted  for  more  than  40%  of  the  total 
number  of  detected  suspected  infringements  in  the  Black  Sea  and  North  Sea.  Misrecording 
infringements reached almost 60% of suspected infringements in the Baltic Sea, and rose to 
75%  in  the  JDPs  for  the  ‘western  waters’of  the  North-East  Atlantic.  In  the  Mediterranean 
JDP,  suspected  infringements  related  to  non-compliance  with  rules  on  technical  measures 
accounted  for  30%  of  all  infringements,  while  misrecording  accounted  for  25%,  and  the 
remaining  45%  of  detected  suspected  infringements  related  to  non-compliance  with 
management rules or traceability. 

In  recent  years,  intelligence  in  fisheries  control  has  benefited  from  the  use  of  new 
technologies,  such  as  earth-observation  technologies.  In  2019,  the  EFCA  used  satellite 
remote sensing for vessel detection, target identification, and other specific monitoring tasks. 

2.4. Control of the landing obligation 

The landing obligation, which came fully into force in January 2019, is one of the core parts 
of  the  reformed  CFP.  Since  its  phased  introduction  began  in  January  2015,  Member  States 
have  made  little  progress  in  controlling  and  enforcing  its  application.  The  Commission  has 
conducted  a  number  of  audits  to  evaluate  the  measures  adopted  by  Member  States  to:  (i) 
ensure  control  and  enforcement  of  the  landing  obligation;  and  (ii)  ensure  the  accurate 
documentation of all catches. The findings of these audits (in conjunction with other reports 
such as: (i) compliance evaluation reports prepared by the EFCA in cooperation with regional 
control expert groups28; (ii) Member State reports; and (iii) reports from environmental non-
governmental  organisations  all  point  towards  a  poor  level  of  compliance  with  the  landing 
obligation.  The  findings  also  indicate  that  there  is  extensive,  illegal  and  undocumented 

24  The  Eastern  Atlantic  and  Mediterranean  Sea;  the  Black  Sea;  the  Baltic  Sea;  the  North  Sea  and  ICES 

division IIa; the Western Waters of North Eastern Atlantic. 

25  The  term  ‘suspected  infringements’  refers  to  infringements  detected  by  an  inspector  and  reported  in  the 

inspection report, before a decision is taken by the competent authority or by a judge.  

26  https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%20Annual%20Report%20for%20year%202019.pdf. 
27  OJ L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105–201  
28  https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/compliance-evaluation. 

6 

 
                                                           
discarding  of  catches  in  several  sea  basins.  The  success  of  the  landing  obligation  depends, 
among  other  things,  on  Member  States  introducing  appropriate  measures  to  ensure  control 
and enforcement of fishing activities at sea. Such measures would promote compliance and 
incentivise the fishing industry to avoid unwanted catches in the first place – an objective of 
the  CFP.  Remote  electronic  monitoring  (REM),  incorporating  closed-circuit  television  and 
sensors, has been demonstrated as the most cost-effective means for Member States to ensure 
control  and  enforcement  of  fishing  activities  at  sea.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission’s 
proposal to revise the EU’s fisheries-control system provides a legal basis for the mandatory, 
risk-based use of REM, as the most effective and cost-efficient means to control the landing 
obligation  at  sea.  In  2019,  the  EFCA  developed,  in  cooperation  with  Member  States, 
technical guidelines and minimum specifications for REM29. 

2.5. Inspections and enforcement 

The number of people authorised by Member States to perform fisheries inspections rose 
from about 12 750 in 2015 to almost 14 400 in 2019, with inspectors ranging from about 4 to 
5 000 full-time equivalents per Member State. Comparing the ratio of full-time and part-time 
fisheries inspectors,  about  1 in  3 inspectors has  control of  fisheries as their main task.  It  is 
difficult to assess any real increase in staff numbers dedicated to fisheries control because the 
powers  of  inspectors  vary  across  Member  States30.  Nevertheless  some  Member  States 
highlighted  that  they  suffered  from  understaffed  inspectorates,  which  may  compromise  the 
effectiveness of their control systems.  

Member States  reported  a total  of about  450 000 inspections in 2015-2019. Comparing the 
ratio  of  inspections  across  the  four  principal  locations,  48%  were  performed  in  port/at 
landing, 26% on the market, 22% at sea, and 4% during transport. 

Member States  reported  1 147 patrol vessels used for fisheries inspection in  2015, rising to 
1 256 in 2019, with a total of almost 100 000 patrol days at sea over the 2015-2019 reporting 
period,  compared  to  the  56 000  patrol  days  at  sea  reported  for  2010-2014.  In  addition, 
Member States also reported an increase in surveillance aircraft dedicated to fisheries control 
and  surveillance,  rising  from  72  in  2015  to  76  in  2019,  with  a  total  of  almost  30 000 
surveillance  hours  carried  out  in  2015-2019.  There  has  also  been  an  increase  in  the  use  of 
new  technologies  for  fishery  surveillance.  In  2015,  2  Member  States  reported  the  use  of 
drones,  with  a  total  of  8  drones  used,  while  in  2019,  7  Member  States  used  drones,  with  a 
total of 39 devices in operation. 

In 2015-2019, Member States identified in total more than 65 000 suspected infringements, 
with  an annual  figure which oscillated between  12 000 and 14 000. The  number of  serious 
infringements showed a general upward trend, rising from about 3 000 in 2015 to 3 500 in 
2019. On average, around 1 in 10 inspections identified infringements. 

29  https://www.efca.europa.eu/en/content/technical-guidelines-and-specifications-implementation-remote-

electronic-monitoring-rem-eu. 

30  A variety of national agents can be considered inspectors, ranging from specialised fisheries inspectors to 

police and agents working as custom officers. 

7 

 
                                                           
The most commonly suspected infringements are traceability infringements (28%), followed 
by  fishing-logbook  and  landing-declaration  infringements  (22%),  and  infringements  of 
control  rules  contained  in  multi-annual  plans31  (20%).  For  the  least  frequently  suspected 
infringements, Member States reported no infringements – or almost no infringements – of: 
(i) monitoring of price and intervention arrangements; (ii) common organisation of markets; 
or (iii) weighing after transport. 

In  2019,  the  Commission  launched  a  study  on  Member  States’  sanctioning  systems32.  The 
objective was to provide an in-depth  analysis and assessment of the functioning of national 
sanctioning  systems,  and  in  particular  on  the  sanctions  applied  by  Member  States  for 
infringements  between  2015  and  2019.  The  results  of  the  study  indicate  that  the  necessary 
legal framework in the Member States is mostly complete and that many Member States have 
improved their legal framework in the last 5 years. At the end of 2019, all but one Member 
State  had  in  place  a  point  system  for  licence  holders  and  masters  of  fishing  vessels. 
Nevertheless,  in  some  Member  States  the  implementation  of  the  point  system  has  been 
delayed  or  is  not  yet  operational.  Moreover,  there  are  significant  differences  between 
countries  in  the  duration  of  the  proceedings  for  the  sanctioning  process  and  in  the  level  of 
sanctions imposed. These findings show that  although the situation improved in  2015-2019 
compared to 2010-2014, more should be done to ensure a level playing field. They also show 
that  more  should  be  done  to  ensure  the  effectiveness,  dissuasiveness  and  proportionality  of 
sanctions  applied  in  each  Member  State.  Among  its  primary  objectives,  the  revision  of  the 
fisheries-control  system  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  2018  aims  to  remove  current 
regulatory obstacles that hinder equal treatment of operators and fair competition across the 
EU. 

2.6. Data and information 

Member States are regularly reporting catch and effort data to the Commission. This makes 
it possible to monitor total allowable catches and quota consumption. Ensuring data quality is 
a  key  element  of  the  work  by  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  improve  quota 
monitoring, with data quality ensured by appropriate data validation and crosschecking. On 
the obligation to set up an automated crosscheck and data-validation system, 22 out of 23 
Member  States  report  having  set  up  such  a  system,  but  only  12  of  these  22  have  already 
automated  their  systems.  An  additional  6  Member  States  plan  to  implement  automation  by 
2021.  More  delays  in  automation  are  still  observed  in  4  Member  States.  A  few  Member 
States report the implementation of automated crosschecks as a major achievement in 2015-
2019.  

To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of data exchange, the Commission in 2016 set a 
binding timetable for Member States to introduce the FLUX (fisheries language for universal 
exchange)  standard  for  fisheries  data  management33.  With  the  FLUX  standard,  regional 

31  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/multiannual-plans_en 
32  Study on the sanctioning systems of Member States for infringements to the rules of the Common Fisheries 
Policy’, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dfb452c8-c4df-11eb-a925-01aa75ed71a1 

33  http://www.unece.org/uncefact/unflux. 

8 

 
                                                           
fisheries-management organisations and countries around the world can for the first time use 
a  single,  universal  code  to  automate  the  collection  and  dissemination  of  their  fishery  catch 
data.  The  standard  is  also  harmonised  with  standards  used  for  taxes  and  food  traceability. 
During  the  past  5  years,  the  level  of  progress  in  the  implementation  of  FLUX  has  varied 
among  Member  States  and  across  domains.  The  exchange  system  FLUX  Transportation 
Layer  (FLUX  TL)  is  now  operational  in  the  Commission  and  in  22  out  of  the  23  Member 
States  concerned.  All  exchanges  of  fisheries  data  take  place  via  a  central  data-exchange 
platform  hosted  by  DG  MARE,  and  this  platform  can  be  used  to  send  validated  data  and 
content in standard formats to the Commission. Data exchanges in these formats are either in 
place or progressing well in most Member States for the following categories of data: fishing 
activity, sales notes, vessel position, fleet data, and aggregated catch data.  

3.  Implementation by the Commission 

The Commission played a key role in helping the Member States to implement the Control 
Regulation  and  in  monitoring  their  compliance  with  the  Regulation.  In  particular,  the 
Commission:  (i)  enabled  the  exchange  of  fisheries  data  by  developing  the  necessary  IT 
infrastructure;  (ii)  carried  out  numerous  audits  and  verifications  and  followed  up  on  these 
audits  and  verifications;  (iii)  assisted  the  Member  States  in  interpreting  the  legislation;  and 
(iv) organised many expert groups on fisheries control. All these activities, together with the 
operational  coordination  offered  by  the  EFCA,  have  substantially  helped  to  improve  the 
implementation of the Control Regulation during the reporting period. 

3.1. Legislation and policy development 

In  2017,  the  Commission  adopted  the  report  on  the  implementation  and  evaluation  of 
the Control Regulation34. In line with Article 118(3), the report assessed the implementation 
of the Regulation and its impacts on the CFP 5 years after its entry into force. As part of the 
2015  regulatory  fitness  and  performance  programme  (REFIT)35,  the  report  also  assessed 
whether  the  Control  Regulation  was  still  fit  for  purpose,  thus  focusing  on  simplifying  and 
reducing  regulatory  burden.  The  results  showed  that,  although  the  Control  Regulation  had 
helped to improve the fisheries-control system and increase compliance with the CFP rules, it 
was not entirely fit for purpose. The report highlighted a number of key challenges that the 
EU and its  Member States needed  to  address  to ensure:  (i) sustainable fisheries; (ii) a level 
playing  field  among  operators;  and  (iii)  better  synergies  with  other  policies  notably  on  the 
environment and markets. A special report of the European Court of Auditors36, a Resolution 

34  COM(2017)192 final  
35  Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) State of Play and Outlook ‘REFIT Scoreboard’,    

SWD(2015)110 final 

36  Special report ‘EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed’ 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41459. 

9 

 
                                                           
by the European Parliament37, and an opinion of the REFIT platform38 have also shown that 
the EU fisheries-control system has its faults and is overall not fit for purpose. 

The  Court  of  Auditors  in  particular  raised  concerns  about  the  following  issues:  (i)  the 
accuracy of Member States’ fleet registers (on engine power and gross tonnage); (ii) the high 
dependence  on  unreliable  paper-based  catch-reporting  systems;  (iii)  the  lack  of  effective 
monitoring  of  the  small-scale  fleet;  (iv)  the  need  to  set  up  a  data-exchange  platform  to 
facilitate  the  sharing  of  fisheries  data  between  Member  States;  (v)  the  lack  of  standardised 
fisheries-inspection protocols; and (vi) the need to implement a system to exchange data on 
infringements and sanctions between Member States.  

In June 2017, the Commission launched a political initiative to revise the EU fisheries-control 
system.  As  part  of  this  initiative,  in  October  2017  the  Commission  published  an  inception 
impact  assessment,  followed  by  targeted  stakeholder  consultations  in  November  and 
December 2017. This resulted in the Commission adopting in May 2018 a proposal to revise 
the EU’s fisheries-control system39. The proposal aims at: (i) strengthening the enforcement 
provisions; (ii) ensuring better quality and better sharing of fisheries data and information, in 
particular  for  small-scale  and  recreational  fisheries;  (iii)  filling  the  gap  with  the  CFP  in 
control  of  the  landing  obligation;  (iv)  reducing  administrative  burden;  and  (v)  enhancing 
synergies with other policies. The current analysis of the Control Regulation implementation 
for  the  period  2015-2019  shows  that  all  these  issues  are  still  relevant.  The  proposal  is 
currently undergoing the ordinary legislative procedure and being examined by the European 
Parliament  and  Council.  The  objectives  of  the  revision  are  fully  in  line  with  the  European 
Green  Deal40,  using  the  benefits  of  the  digital  transformation  to  support  ecological 
transformation. It is also part of Commission’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy41, insofar as the revised 
fisheries-control system will fight against food fraud and help food sustainability through an 
improved traceability system. 

The REFIT evaluation highlighted the importance of the SCIPs. SCIPs are considered by all 
stakeholders to  be indispensable for effective inspections and for strengthening  cooperation 
among  Member  States  in  EU  and  international  waters.  In  2017,  in  collaboration  with  the 
EFCA and the Member States, the Commission began working towards a new approach that 
would: (i) streamline the existing SCIPs42; (ii) extend their geographical coverage and scope, 
in line with the reformed CFP; and (iii) reduce the administrative burden. This resulted in the 
2018  adoption  by  the  Commission  of  new  SCIPs43,  covering  all  EU  sea  basins  and  all  the 
fisheries covered by EU fisheries-conservation and fisheries-management measures in those 

37  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0407_EN.html. 
38  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xiv3acontrol_of_eu_fisheries.pdf. 
39   COM(2018)368 final  
40  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. 
41  https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en. 
42  OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 99–108;  OJ L 170, 22.6.2013, p. 66–75 , OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 61–70  OJ L 85, 

21.3.2014, p. 15–26 ;  

43  OJ L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 29–46 

10 

 
                                                           
sea  basins.  This  also  improved  the  JDPs  as  a  platform  for  coordination.  A  harmonised 
methodology for risk assessment was also drawn up to provide for: (i) a coherent approach to 
control  and  inspection  programmes  within  a  sea  basin;  and  (ii)  a  level  playing  field  for 
fisheries  of  different  Member  States.  The  harmonised  methodology44  was  drawn  up  by  the 
EFCA  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  and  is  based  on  possible  threats  of  non-
compliance with the rules of the CFP. 

3.2. Data and information 

Since  2015,  the  Commission  has  devoted  considerable  resources  and  efforts  to  develop  the 
necessary  IT  infrastructure  to  enable  Member  States  to  exchange  fisheries  data  in  the 
UN/FLUX  format.  In  line  with  the  Court  of  Auditors’  recommendation45  to  improve  the 
completeness and reliability of fisheries data, in 2015-2019 the Commission focused on the 
development  and  implementation  of  the  FLUX  Transportation  Layer  (FLUX  TL)46  .  This 
project proved challenging, because early versions of FLUX TL were not able to handle the 
growing volume of data exchanged. With each new release, the FLUX TL software became 
more  capable.  The  most  recent  updates  meet  the  required  needs  and  offer  more  technical 
advantages  such  as  a  monitoring  page.  The  Commission  also  played  a  decisive  role  in 
proposing  implementation  documents  which  contain  the  detailed  rules  for  data  exchanges. 
These documents are agreed with the Member States through the ERS and Data Management 
expert group.  

The  Commission  also  developed  standardised  formats  to  exchange  data  on  fishing 
authorisations  and  inspection  reports.  The  LICENSE  system  for  exchanging  fishing 
authorisations between Member States, third parties and the Commission became operational 
in December 2020. It is expected that the LICENSE system will be expanded to enable the 
exchange of inspection reports by mid-2021. 

At  the  request  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Commission  launched  a  pilot  project  in 
November 2019 to develop and test a ‘control scheme for recreational catches of sea bass’47. 
An  external  contractor  has  developed  an  integrated  IT  tool  to  allow  recreational  fishers  to 
quickly inform  national  authorities about  their daily catches by registering those catches. A 
web-based platform was developed to receive those catch data (RecFishing.eu), and will be 
further expanded to due to the positive results of the pilot project. The results were presented 
in the webinar ‘Monitoring and control of recreational fisheries’ in December 202048. 

44  https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Risk%20Assessment%20Methodology.pdf. 
45  Recommendation 3 of the special report No 08/2017 ‘EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed’ 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41459. 

46  FLUX TL is the software used for exchanging fisheries data between Member States, the European 

Commission, and the EFCA. 

47  https://op.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/01f3d94d-4019-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-

en/format-PDF/source-180378385. 

48  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/webinar-recreational-fisheries-monitoring-and-control-2020-

12-04_en  

11 

 
                                                           
3.3. Verification and enforcement activities by the Commission 

Member  States  must  ensure  they  have  effective  fisheries-control  systems  in  place.  The 
Commission is responsible for overseeing and enforcing the correct application of the Control 
Regulation  and  the  CFP  rules  by  the  Member  States.  To  verify  the  effectiveness  of  their 
control systems and the compliance with CFP rules by Member States, Commission officials 
carry  out  verifications,  autonomous  inspections  and  audits.  During  the  period  2015-2019, 
around 150 in-field visits were carried out by DG MARE in Member States, most of which 
were  audits.  Particular  emphasis  was  devoted  to:  (i)  the  proper  functioning  of  catch-
registration  procedures;  (ii)  weighing  procedures;  (iii)  measures  put  in  place  to  control  the 
landing  obligation;  (iv)  monitoring  and  control  of  the  external  fleet;  and  (v)  verification  of 
engine power.  

Verification missions and audits have been also carried out to check the implementation of 
control  measures  for  specific  fisheries  where  issues  came  to  light  and  urgent  action  was 
required, such as for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea, cod and salmon in the Baltic, and 
pulse fishing in the North Sea. Checks were carried out to investigate alleged breaches of EU 
fisheries  law  notified  through  complaints.  In  addition,  efforts  were  made  to  tackle 
deficiencies  identified  in  the  proper  implementation  of  the  sanctioning  provisions  and  the 
point systems.  

Between  2019  and  2020  the  Commission  required  two  Member  States  to  launch 
administrative  inquiries.  The  first  inquiry  was  to  investigate  weaknesses  detected  in 
weighing and control measures for pelagic fisheries and bluefin-tuna recreational fisheries49. 
The  second  inquiry  was  to  investigate  deficiencies  in  the  control  system  for  bluefin-tuna 
farming50.  

In many cases, findings from audits and verification missions were successfully addressed by 
Member  States  as  part  of  informal  bilateral  dialogues  (also  known  as  EU  pilot  files). 
Between  2015  and  2018,  the  Commission  opened  7  EU  pilot  files  for  6 Member  States,  of 
which 1 is still ongoing. Those pilot files concerned: (i) the implementation of an action plan; 
(ii)  the  implementation  of  the  point  system  in  two  Member  States;  (iii)  control  of  the  fleet 
operating  in  NEAFC;  (iv)  catch  reporting;  and  (v)  the  control  of  engine  power  in  two 
Member States. In 2019, the Commission launched 24 EU pilot files covering a total of 17 
Member States. Of these, 8 related to the control of the Member States’ external fleet, 15 to 
the control of engine power, and 1 to the sanctioning and point system. In addition, in 2020 
the Commission launched 3 more EU pilot files covering 3 Member States, 2 of which related 
to the caging of bluefin tuna and 1 to the control of the external fleet. 

If the Commission identifies shortcomings in the Member States’ control systems that require 
more effort and time for Member States to address, the Commission draws up action plans 
for  those  Member  States.  In  the  period  2015-2019,  the  Commission  drew  up  9  new  action 

49 
Ireland. 
50  Croatia. 

12 

 
                                                           
plans51, while in the same period 6 of the 8 action plans launched before 2015 were closed52. 
At the end of 2019, 11 Member States were under an action plan53, and 4 new action plans 
were opened in 202054. The 15 ongoing action plans address: (i) deficiencies identified in the 
catch-registration system; (ii) the sanctioning systems; (iii) the risk-management process; (iv) 
the  computerised  data-validation/automated-crosscheck  systems;  and  (v)  the  traceability 
requirements.  

Finally,  in  2015-2019,  the  Commission  opened  three  infringement  procedures  against 
Member States. These procedures related to: (i) the control of the fleet in NAFO waters55; (ii) 
the implementation of the point system56; and (iii) compliance with the exclusivity clause and 
control of the fleet fishing in West Africa57. Two of these procedures were closed in 2019 and 
202058, while 159 is still ongoing. One infringement that was launched in 2014 on compliance 
with  the  catch-registration  and  weighing  system  is  still  open60.  In  2020,  the  Commission 
launched  3  additional  infringement  procedures:  1  on  the  control  of  farms  in  bluefin-tuna 
fisheries61, and 2 on the catch-registration and weighing system62. 

One  of  the  infringement  procedures  led  to  an  ex-ante  suspension  of  EMFF  control  funds, 
while  the  verification  missions  on  the  salmon  fishery  in  the  Baltic  led  to  a  payback 
implementing decision63 for one Member State. 

4.  Fisheries control and implementation of the CFP and EMFF 

The Control Regulation is one of the main pillars in the implementation of the CFP because it 
lays down the rules for reporting catches. These rules are essential for verifying compliance 
with  annually  adopted  catch  limits.  During  the  period  2015-2019,  the  Commission 
streamlined the legal process for operating quota transfers. In addition to improvements in the 
resources  devoted  by  Member  States  to  reporting,  this  streamlined  legal  process  meant  the 
quota-transfer  system  became  more  transparent  and  efficient.  Nevertheless,  more  work  is 
needed  to  improve  the  reporting  on  transfers  and  deductions  in  the  context  of  international 
agreements, as this reporting sometimes suffers from inconsistencies. 

Ireland. 

51  Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands. 
52  Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Spain. 
53  Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal. 
54  Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden. 
55  Portugal. 
56 
57 
58 
59 
Ireland. 
60  Denmark. 
61  Malta. 
62  Belgium and the Netherlands. 
63  OJ L 56, 27.2.2020, p. 1–3 

Italy and Portugal. 

Italy. 

13 

 
                                                           
The  implementation  of  an  EU  fisheries  control  system  is  supported  through  the  EMFF64. 
Under  the  EMFF,  Member  States  collectively  allocated  EUR  567.9 million  for  control  and 
enforcement  operations  in  the  period  2014-2019.  By  the  end  of  2019,  Member  States  had 
committed  EUR  375.8  million  to  be  spent65,  which  amounts  to  66.2%  of  the  total  planned 
EMFF budget for these measures. Amongst the many types of investment, the top three were: 
(i) purchase, installation and development of technology; (ii) modernisation and purchase of 
patrol  vessels,  aircraft  and  helicopters;  and  (iii)  operational  costs.  These  three  types  of 
investment together attracted 70% of total commitments. It should be noted that, although the 
EU priority under which control falls (Union Priority 3, ‘Fostering the implementation of the 
CFP’) has the highest  absorption  rate of all fisheries funds, the absorption rate of 46.8% is 
still low in absolute terms, and the Commission hopes for better implementation of both the 
current EMFF and the new EMFAF for the period of 2021-2027. In this context, guidelines 
have been provided for EMFAF programming66, and potential budget expenditures have been 
allocated  for  ‘improving  enforcement  and  control  of  fisheries  and  the  provision  of  data’, 
including  the  development  and  implementation  of  effective  and  innovative  fisheries-
monitoring technology67.  

5.  Coordination with Member States, the EFCA and third partners in international 

fora 

The  effective  and  efficient  application  of  the  fisheries-control  system  requires  constant 
interaction  and  collaboration  among  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  the  EFCA.  It 
also requires cooperation at international level with non-EU countries and regional fisheries-
management organisations.  

The Commission regularly discusses the implementation of the Control Regulation with the 
Member  States  and  the  EFCA  in  the  Expert  Group  on  Fisheries  Control.  Enforcement 
issues  are  discussed  in  the  Expert  Group  on  Compliance,  while  IT  developments  and 
implementation are discussed in the ERS and Data Management Expert Group. 

At  EU  level,  the  Commission  and  EFCA  closely  collaborate  to  ensure  correct 
implementation  of the fisheries-control  system,  exchanging information  and data as  well as 
participating in various fisheries-control meetings. The Commission in particular engages in: 
(i) the activities organised by the regional control expert groups and the EFCA to implement 
the JDP; and (ii) the working group on electronic inspection and surveillance reports. 

64  OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1–66    
65  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/news/eu-funding-fisheries-aquaculture-and-processing-sectors-

how-have-member-states-used-it-2020-12_en 

66  SWD(2020) 206 final - Annex 
67  Suggested  investments  in  enforcement  and  control  include:  (i)  control  and  monitoring  of  the  landing 
obligation; (ii) control of weighing; (iii) maritime water surveillance; (iv) traceability  and monitoring and 
control  of  the  small-scale  fleet;  (v)  and  engine  verification.  Other  suggested  investments  include  REM, 
including: (i) CCTV; (ii) automatic recognition software; (iii) drones; (iv) high-resolution satellite imagery; 
(v) blockchain technology; (vi) handheld ERS; and (vii) devices and systems for continuous monitoring of 
engine performance. 

14 

 
                                                           
As a global leader in ocean governance and a front-line fighter against IUU fishing, the EU is 
active  in  promoting  better  ocean  governance,  including  control  measures.  In  line  with  the 
international  ocean-governance  agenda68,  the  Commission  works  closely  with  partners 
from  around  the  globe,  such  as  regional  fisheries-management  organisations69  and 
international organisations70. The Commission also works bilaterally with non-EU countries 
that have engaged with the EU in fishing agreements71 and with non-EU countries under IUU 
dialogues72  to:  (i)  ensure  fisheries  compliance;  (ii)  apply  the  latest  standards  for  fisheries 
control and data exchange73; and (iii) ensure proper follow-up of cases of non-compliance. 

6.  Conclusion 

The  control  of  fisheries  is  essential  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  as  well  as  for 
ensuring a level playing field among operators. During the period 2015-2019, Member States 
made progress with their implementation of the Control Regulation. Improvements included: 
(i)  more  modernised  methods  of  control,  including  an  increased  use  of  VMS  and  ERS  for 
monitoring,  control  and  reporting  of  fishing  vessels;  and  (ii)  automated  cross  checks  of 
fisheries  data.  Member  States  also  made  efforts  to  improve  their  sanctioning  systems, 
although  the  level  of  implementation  of  these  sanctioning  systems  is  not  equal  across 
Member States, and this creates an unlevel playing field. The Commission and EFCA helped 
Member  States  to:  (i)  develop  new  IT  tools;  (ii)  harmonise  their  methodologies  for  risk 
assessment; and (iii) coordinate at an operational level. In addition, the implementation of the 
EMFF  provided  financial  support  for  control  by  aiding  the  purchase,  installation  and 
development of technologies and the modernisation of control methods in Member States. 

Despite  significant  improvements,  shortcomings  remain  in  the  application  of  the  Control 
Regulation. These shortcomings can be found in: (i) provisions on the control and verification 
of engine power; (ii) weighing; (iii) landing obligations; (iv) control of the external fleet; and 
(v)  sanctioning.  In  the  coming  years,  the  Commission  will  focus  on  further  implementing 
these  measures.  The  Commission  will  also  continue  working  on  enforcement  and  full 
implementation of the CFP and on effective control and enforcement in line with the mission 
letter of President von der Leyen to Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius74. In addition, the 

68  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/ocean/international-ocean-governance_en   Action 7 of the 

Agenda calls on ‘Fighting illegal fishing and strengthening the sustainable management of ocean food 
resources globally’. https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/ocean/international-ocean-governance_en  
69  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/international-agreements/regional-fisheries-management-

organisations-rfmos_en 

70  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/international-agreements_en 
71  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/international-agreements/sustainable-fisheries-

partnership-agreements-sfpas_en 

72  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/fisheries/rules/illegal-fishing_en 
73  Thanks to EU efforts, NEAFC adopted the FLUX standard for data exchanges in November 2018. The 

Commission has also started negotiations on the introduction of the UN/FLUX standard in various bilateral 
fora, including with Norway and the Faroe Islands. 

74  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/sites/comm-

cwt2019/files/commissioner_mission_letters/mission-letter-sinkevicius-2019-2024_en.pdf. 

15 

 
                                                           
Commission will: (i) verify the application of traceability provisions, in line with the ‘farm to 
fork’  strategy;  (ii)  verify  the  control  of  fishing-effort  regimes;  and  (iii)  promote  the  testing 
and development  of smart technologies applied to  control, in  line with  the European  Green 
Deal.  Finally,  together  with  the  EFCA,  the  Commission  will  work  further  to:  (i)  develop 
methodologies  for  assessing  compliance  with  the  landing  obligation;  and  (ii)  harmonise 
methodologies used in the implementation of sampling plans for weighing. On the revision of 
the fisheries-control system, the Commission will continue to work alongside the Council and 
Parliament to strengthen, modernise and clarify current rules. 

16