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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 –
Using the above points as headings, the followingprovides a summary of what the Commission envisagesfor the control and enforcement aspectsof the Work Plan and also describes the role andfunction of the Control Agency.The Commission’s inspection prioritiesThe European Commission has a team of approximately30 inspectors and, following an advertisingfor 29 more, will be recruiting throughout2007. Through “Missions” to the MemberStates and through the analysis of informationgathered from different sources, the inspectorsobserve and verify how the national authoritieshave organised their control and inspection activities,and how the rules of the CFP are applied inpractice. The Commission has set four inspectionpriorities:The first priority for Commission inspectors isthe effective application of conservation, controland enforcement measures by Member Stateson stocks that are outside safe biological limitsand for which recovery plans have been tabled– and so includes the Baltic Sea cod fishery. Theadoption of specific monitoring programmes willprovide a focus on inspection and surveillanceat sea, inspections of landings, including the firstsale of the quantities landed, as well as transportand marketing. The monitoring programmes willalso set out benchmarks for inspection, commonpriorities and list the checks to be carried out bynational inspectors, with the intention of providinga clearer basis upon which Commissioninspectors can undertake their evaluations.The second priority is the verification of theimplementation and effectiveness of particularrequirements in specified areas, such as effortlimitations in the North Sea and North WesternWaters, control measures for the Baltic Sea codfishery, control measures for highly migratoryspecies, checking of logbook requirements in theMediterranean and checking on how MemberStates control engine power. In so doing, theCommission inspectors will provide evaluation<strong>report</strong>s on how Member States are performing.The third priority relates to cooperation withthird countries, notably under bilateral fisheryagreements, regional fisheries organisations’control and enforcement schemes, and the FAOInternational Plan of Action to Prevent, Deterand Eliminate Illegal, Un<strong>report</strong>ed and Unregulatedfishing – this is a high seas initiative ratherthan within the EU EEZ.Finally, the fourth priority that the Commissionhas set will facilitate the implementation of newtechnological requirements adopted by the newCFP, such as the inclusion of VMS requirementsfor smaller vessels, pilot projects on remote sensingand electronic logbooks.The Commission’s priority areas appear to be appropriateand well founded. However, the abilityof the Commission inspectors to effectively undertaketheir role as “monitors of the monitors”has been diluted and constrained in a numberof ways by Article 27(1) of the CFP frameworkregulation (EC 2371/2002):• They have no additional powers beyond thoseof national inspectors and have no enforcementpowers;• If a Commission inspection takes placewithout assistance of national inspectors, thethird party is within their right to decline aninspection;• Commission inspections can only take placeon fishing vessels, places of first landing orfirst points of sale, unless accompanied bynational inspectors;• Commission inspections of business premisesor vehicles transporting fish can only takeplace when accompanied by national inspectors;and• Member States are not obliged to act againstindividuals on the basis of the findings of aCommission inspection <strong>report</strong>.How much these limitations undermine theCommission inspectors effectiveness was notclarified during the course of this study, althoughit was intimated by the Commission that theinability for Commission inspectors to operatewhile ashore, in some circumstances, inhibitedtheir effectiveness and that it was down to MemberStates to be more willing than they presentlywere to allow this to change.Administrative inquiriesOwing to the apparent EU-wide problem ofunrecorded landings of cod and hake, the Commissionwill request all Member States concernedto undertake administrative inquiries into thereliability of cod and hake catch data and toinvestigate any potential cases of illegal landings– 31 –
Page 1 and 2: A report on IUUfis
Page 3 and 4: A report on IUUfis
Page 5 and 6: Part II 21Policy and regulatory fra
Page 7: Executive summaryThe cod fisheries
Page 10 and 11: Part IDescribing and quantifying IU
Page 12 and 13: which it has undermined their abili
Page 14 and 15: the Association of Fish Processors
Page 16 and 17: or close to fishing communities was
Page 18 and 19: Fishing in closed areasEU fisheries
Page 20 and 21: the fishing industry and, therefore
Page 22 and 23: very active on the issue and, at th
Page 24 and 25: that were adopted within the IBSFC
Page 26 and 27: Table 5. An analysis of the 11 Poin
Page 28 and 29: Action Point and its Aim6. Working
Page 32 and 33: of cod and hake. The Commission wil
Page 34 and 35: adopted in the North Sea, the Balti
Page 36 and 37: Table 6 Showing the indicators used
Page 38 and 39: Policy areas Policy theme Indicator
Page 40 and 41: Table 7. The list of types of behav
Page 42 and 43: of this Regulation is to streamline
Page 44 and 45: appeared to bear out that significa
Page 46 and 47: General headings/Sub-headingsDetail
Page 48 and 49: Notes1ICES. 2005. Report of the Bal
Page 50 and 51: ReferencesAnderson, J.L., 2002. Rea
Page 52 and 53: DENMARKThe Baltic is the third most
Page 54 and 55: highest allowable level of dioxin i
Page 56 and 57: duction are Iceland, Norway, Japan
Page 58 and 59: The processing sectorAt the beginni
Page 60 and 61: Annex IIMembers of the Administrati
Page 62 and 63: Annex IVSummary of the European Com
Page 64 and 65: Department of Fisheries and Game (k
Page 66 and 67: InspectionsThe Fisheries Control De
Page 68 and 69: this was to exceed the maximum, the
Page 70 and 71: Theme/ PolicyareaInspection andcont

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?