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

failings in the process (see page 33).With respect to actions for which there werelimited or no progress, the Commission hadgiven a low priority to all but the developmentof common inspection protocol/criteria fromthe outset. Results from its interim evaluationof the implementation of Annex III confirm thatinspections are still not being conducted in astandardised way. It was not entirely clear fromthe discussions with the Commission why standardisinginspections was such a difficult thing todo. It seems likely that, for some Member Stateauthorities, a significant factor is the practicalreality of undertaking inspections with limitedresources, often in less than ideal conditions orcircumstances. In such cases, inspectors may findthey have to prioritise aspects of an inspection atthe expense of others.If standardised, inspections may consistently failto be fully applied, even though key aspects ofan inspection were undertaken. The authoritiescould either fail to meet minimum requirementsor chose to <strong>report</strong> a complete inspection, withoutactually doing so, making a mockery of thesystem.It would be unfair to use the feedback receivedin the course of the study as a clear indication ofeffectiveness of the Action Plan. However, it wasobvious that some of the actions were consideredeasier to assess than others as they had tangibleresults or indicators. In other instances, thereappears only to be a presumption that becausecertain frameworks or procedures are in placethe actions are effective.The Compliance Work PlanThe Commission’s Compliance Work Plan aimsto compliment and take forward the Action Plan.It focuses on three main areas:• Support to national authorities and promotionof co-ordination between them• Control and enforcement• TransparencyIn discussion with members of DirectorateD: Control and Enforcement and with referenceto the Commission’s Communication(COM(2003)344) 20 , the following provides asummary of what the Commission has alreadyachieved and what it envisages for the Work Planunder these three areas. Where possible, it alsohighlights aspects of particular relevance to theBaltic region.Support to national authorities and coordinationbetween themThe Commission will continue to work withthe Member States within the framework ofthe Management Committee for Fisheries andAquaculture and the Expert Group on FisheriesControl. Their focus will be:• the adjustment of fleet capacity;• the current weaknesses in inspection andsurveillance, including follow-up of infringements;and• assessment of joint inspection programmes(in so doing, the Commission will undertakeperiodic evaluation <strong>report</strong>s).The Commission will also continue to consultstakeholders through the Advisory Committeeon Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) and useRegional Advisory Councils (RACs) to consultinterested parties. With respect to the Baltic, theWorking Group on Control and Enforcementwill continue to provide important input and theCommission specifically expressed its high expectationsof the Baltic Sea RAC.Control and enforcement of the planThe Commission has broadly set out withinthe Work Plan how it will monitor and enforcethe correct application of Community law bythe Member States. The Commission intends tofocus its efforts in four ways:1. By identifying inspection priorities;2. The establishment of “administrative inquiries”into cod and hake catch data;3. The freeing up and re-directing of EU inspectortime away from RFO (Regional FisheriesOrganisations such as NAFO, NEAFC) duties;and4. Ensuring Member States are applying appropriatedeterrents.As well as the inspection and monitoring workundertaken by the Commission, a CommunityFisheries Control Agency (CFCA or “The Agency”)will also be established to support MemberStates in their control and enforcement efforts.– 30 –