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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

adopted in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and forthe eastern stock of blue fin tuna.What constitutes a JDP is elaborated upon in theAgency’s work programme. In summary, it willbuild on the existing operational cooperation betweenthe Member States in the region concernedand it will be tailored to the characteristics ofthe region. The Agency will first make a studycovering information on fishing and control andinspection activities, non-compliance records andlevels, and reasons for such behaviour.Moreover, it will examine ways to promote aculture of compliance on the level of the regiontogether with the relevant RAC. Subsequently,the Agency will analyse on the basis of the meansof control and inspection pooled by the MemberStates concerned how the objectives, prioritiesand bench marks set out in the specific controland inspection plan can be achieved.Within its competence and for this purpose, theAgency may assist in or hold meetings, symposia,conferences, working groups with the MemberStates concerned and the stakeholders throughthe relevant RAC and invite third persons toattend or to make presentations or other writtendocuments so as to contribute to the objectivespursued by the Agency.Within Community waters, priority is given tofishing activities affecting stocks with recoveryplans and within which non-<strong>report</strong>ing of landingsis considered a significant problem.In international waters, the Agency may takeon tasks that are already assigned to the Commissionwithin the North East Atlantic FisheriesCommission (NEAFC) and the North AtlanticFisheries Organisation (NAFO). It may also undertakework with Norway on discarding in themackerel fishery.According to the work programme, the Agencywill have to concentrate its operational activitiesin 2007 and 2008 on a limited number offisheries since it will take some time to be fullyequipped and staffed (estimates of 49 staff havebeen made by the Commission – based on similarCommunity inspection agencies).The Agency will use its experience from 2007 toagree future needs with Member States and theCommission. By 2010 the Agency is anticipatedto become the independent and objective contactpoint in the Community for matters relating tocontrol and inspectionThe estimated budget of the Agency is in theregion of €5 million, which it envisages wouldbe met mainly by a contribution from the Communitybut also through other sources of incomeincluding charges to Member States for specificservices provided to them on a contractual basis(e.g. training), as well as fees for publications.CommentDiscussions with the Commission confirm thatit and some Member State administrations havesome uncertainty as to the benefits the agencywill provide. Some are of the opinion that theAgency was a result of politics as opposed topractical solutions. The basing of it in Vigo, thefishing heartland of a Member State with a notoriousreputation for non-compliance, only servedto confirm these opinions. Some of the southernMember States appear to be more positive asthey see that there is the potential for a CommunityAgency to improve their IUU problems andremove potentially difficult political situationsthat might be created if their own administrationswere more effective. Whereas in the northernMember States they are keen to show thattheir agencies and systems are able to deal withthe problem; in the UK, for example, anythingthat undermines or shows a failing in the RoyalNavy to undertake enforcement will be seen tobe very negative.The challenge appears to be whether the Agencywill add value to the existing system. ManyMember State administrations are under regularscrutiny as to the cost of enforcement and thisis becoming more of an issue. The success, orotherwise, of the Agency is likely to be highlydependent on the ability of the Chief Executiveto establish the organisation and win over theopinion that the Agency is more than a politicalsop to tackling IUU fishing.Figure 2 has been adapted from the CommissionCommunications and staff working papersto show how the Commission envisages that theAgency will fit into helping coordinate and engagewith Member States on specific monitoring,control and surveillance operations.– 34 –
TransparencyDuring the CFP reform process, the Commissionpublished a “Roadmap” 24 that set out howit would implement its programme of reform. Inthis, the Commission committed itself to improvingtransparency of information on compliance offisheries regulations by collating Member State informationand publishing an annual ComplianceScoreboard. To date, three editions of the scoreboardhave been published 25 and take the form ofwritten analysis and data presented in tables.The Scoreboard is intended to show MemberStates’ compliance with their obligations regardingfish stock conservation, fleet management,structural policy, and control and enforcement.This is achieved by using indicators, intendedto provide an easy way of viewing comparativeinformation between Member States. The Scoreboardalso indicates the inspections carried outby Member States and shows the infringementprocedures initiated by the Commission againstMember States who have failed to comply withCFP rules.Table 6 summarises the indicators used in theCommission’s Compliance Scoreboard andevaluates how the EU Baltic Sea Member Statesperformed in 2004.Of particular relevance to this study is the effectivenessof the Scoreboard’s indicators underthe policy themes associated with “managementof fisheries” and “verification of national monitoring/controlarrangements and infringementprocedures”. The following considers each withrespect to the EU Baltic Member States.Reporting catch dataThis is used as a basis to indicate whetherMember States are implementing adequate datamonitoring procedures. The analysis in Table 6shows that six of the Member States had problemsmeeting the requirements of submitting dataon time. From the available information, it canbe concluded that these Members States did nothave adequate monitoring procedures. However,there is no explanation as to the significance orwhy there was this apparent failing, nor is thereany indication of how the Commission intendedto follow up and improve the situation.OverfishingNone of the Member States <strong>report</strong>ed overshootingquotas. However, the Commission is notnaïve enough to think that this is an accuratereflection of the situation and mentions in itsassessment that scientific <strong>report</strong>s and its ownobservations have supported the suspicion thatmis<strong>report</strong>ing and un<strong>report</strong>ed landings take placethroughout the EU. With this in mind, it begs thequestion as to the validity or worth of this as anindicator of compliance.Reports on fishing effortThree Member States were late in submittingtheir fishing effort <strong>report</strong>s. The Commissionindicates that it could take infringement actionagainst those that do not fully meet the requirementsof <strong>report</strong>ing fishing effort. In this instance,however, it gave no indication as to whetheraction would be taken. Without explanation asto the follow up action that the Commissionintends to take, there is no validation in the valueof this as an indicator.Behaviour seriously infringing the rulesFour serious infringement <strong>report</strong>s have beenpublished 27, 28, 29, 30 . Owing to the late submissionof information (see required information formatin Annex III) from Member States, the Commissionwas unable to publish a <strong>report</strong> in 2004. Inits 2005 <strong>report</strong>, the Commission was unable todraw many clear conclusions because of the poorquality of the Member States’ data and the toneof some of the <strong>report</strong>s final remarks suggest adegree of frustration, for example, “Given a certainunreadiness to comply with the obligation oftimely and accurate <strong>report</strong>ing of information on‘serious infringements’, the Commission shall notrule out at this stage taking action against someMember States”.However, and despite this, one clear conclusionthe Commission was able to make is that the levelof fines is insufficient to act as a deterrent andshould be generally increased. It is of the opinionthat an administrative sanction that penalisesfishing time rather than the pocket of fishermen,such as the suspension of a licence or authorisationto fish, would be quicker to administer anda more effective deterrent. It highlights its regretthat Member States do not more readily use thisapproach.– 35 –
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 30 and 31: failings in the process (see page 3
Page 32 and 33: of cod and hake. The Commission wil
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?