A report on iUU fishing of Baltic Sea cod - Fisheries Secretariat

Table 5. An analysis of the 11 Point Action Plan for Cooperation in Enforcement with respect to the Baltic Sea cod fishery5.2.2 Action Was Point the and its Action Aim Plan effective in the Baltic Sea?A description and analysis of how the actions have been applied in the Baltic Sea region1. Select relevant fisheries orstocks:• Demersal fisheries in regions2 and 3;• Highly migratory species inthe Mediterranean;• Cod, herring and sprat fisheriesin ICES divisions III b, cand d, (i.e. The Baltic Sea);• Industrial and pelagic fisheriesin regions 1, 2 and 3;and• Landings of IUU vessels inCommunity ports (this refersspecifically to vessels engagingin high seas fisheries).Aim: The prioritisation ofthe use of existing means ofinspection and surveillance inselected fisheries or stocks.The Baltic Sea cod fishery has been selected as a key fishery on which to focus inspection and surveillanceeffort.The Commission has chosen to use the Working Group on Control and Enforcement, which wasoriginally established by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC), as the main focalpoint for improving integration and cooperation of national control strategies. The Working Group ischaired by the Commission and brings together representatives from all the Baltic Sea Member Statesfisheries inspectorates.Unlike the IBSFC, the Commission does not publish <strong>report</strong>s of these meetings. It appears that owingto sensitivities that some Member States have with respect to having their “shortfalls” being made publiclyavailable and, given the role of facilitator, coordinator and encourager, the Commission is keento establish meetings where Member State representatives can talk openly and not feel too guarded inwhat they say.Feedback received in the course of this study suggests that the Commission is of the opinion that theeffectiveness of inspection and surveillance at sea would be greatly enhanced by better coordinationand more frequent inspections of landings. In particular, the Commission believes:• VMS data is under-utilised by and between Member States with limited use or capacity to usereal time information to direct inspections. Given that Community funds have contributed to thedevelopment and implementation of VMS, the Commission is keen to see better use of the system.• Coordinated at-sea inspections appear to happen more on an ad-hoc basis owing to poor coordinationbetween the relevant Member State departments as well as difficulties in ensuring that vessels,which are often tasked with multiple roles, are available. The Community Fisheries ControlAgency (CFCA) (see page 30) and any vessels it may charter may be able to provide a solution tothis situation.• There is a need for an increase in the frequency of landing inspections: concerted actions needto be taken targeting those fleets or ports where landings of cod are most likely; more inspectorsneed to be employed by the Member States; and/or more specific designated places and times(i.e. than the existing designated ports) need to be set for landings to improve the chance ofinspection.2. The Commission will adoptregulations laying down specificmonitoring programmes forthe relevant fisheries or stocksand establish:• Common inspection andsurveillance priorities;• Benchmarks for inspectionand surveillance of fishingactivities; and• Checks to be made byinspectors.Member States should ensurethat their competent authoritieswill achieve the commoninspection priorities andbenchmarks.Aim: Enhanced effectivenessof inspection and surveillanceactivities.Annex III to Council Regulation 52/2006 19 (also page 42) provides the basis of a specific monitoringprogramme (SMP) for the Baltic Sea cod fishery. Its origin is the IBSFC’s cod recovery plan, which wasagreed in 2002 and has been annually rolled forward and adapted since. An EU cod recovery plan isanticipated in 2007 (see page 21) and will provide a new framework for the SMP.Member States are required to take the necessary measures to facilitate implementation of theseprogrammes, particularly as regards the human and material resources required and the periodsand zones where these are to be deployed. Baltic Sea Member States are required to publish thisinformation on their authorities’ websites. In the same vane, benchmarks for inspection are requiredto be publicised on official websites. While all Member States have published this information somedeficiencies are noted, for example, the Polish website does not give information on how they implementeffort management.The Commission is keen to ensure that uniform inspections are being conducted and that criteria areestablished for what constitutes a “full inspection”. Common rules for national control programmeshave been set but a standardised inspection protocol or criteria have yet to be established for theBaltic Sea.In 2005, the Commission undertook an evaluation of how Member States had implemented measuresset out in Annex III (see page 40). In its interim assessment, the Commission presented broad conclusionsfor four unnamed Member States (subsequently found out to be Poland, Latvia, Lithuania,Estonia). They concluded that:• The interim and additional conditions for monitoring, inspection and surveillance in the contextof recovery of cod stocks in the Baltic Sea were mostly being implemented. However, some measures(undisclosed) were not achieving the intended outcome or were not considered to be useful.• Extra enforcement effort had been deployed in most cases but there were unlikely to be any moreadditional resources for at-sea or onshore enforcement in the near future.• Comprehensive and efficient catch registration systems are in place.• There was scope for better cooperation between Member States.– 26 –