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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy areas Policy theme Indicator How Baltic Member Statesperformed in 2004Environmental List of vessels By 30th April each year, Member States are required to send the Germany and Sweden provided theirIssues authorised to Commission the list of vessels authorised to carry out fishing information to the Commission on time.use driftnets in activities using driftnets in the Baltic Sea. There will be a totalthe Baltic Sea prohibition of this gear in the Baltic Sea from 1st January 2008. Poland did not make any submission.This total ban is preceded by a progressive phasing out. In 2005,the maximum number of vessels, which may be authorised by a All the other Member States providedmember State to use driftnets, shall not exceed 60% of the late submissions.number of fishing vessels that used driftnets during the referenceperiod 2001 to 2003. In 2006 and 2007, this maximum numberof vessels shall not exceed 40% and 20% respectively of thereference number.Verification of Behaviour In 1999 a system was devised “…to increase transparency in the The following shows the number ofnational seriously enforcement of CFP rules and to encourage the adoption of serious infringements and the percentagemonitoring/ infringing the adequate and dissuasive sanctions when serious infringements for which penalties were imposed incontrol arrange- rules of the are detected” 26 . Council Regulation (EC) No.1447/1999 described 2003: Denmark 485 (59%); Germany 128ments and CFP types of behaviour (see table 7) that were considered likely to (100%), Finland 18 (50%); Swedeninfringement cause “serious infringement” of rules relating to important 97 (24%).procedurescomponents of the CFP: fish stock conservation, monitoring offishing activity and marketing of fisheries products.drawing any meaningful conclusionsfrom these figures is not possible for amember States are required to provide annual returns to the number of important reasons, amongCommission on the number of serious infringements, the them: each Member State has its ownproceedings that were initiated (i.e. administrative or criminal) judicial or administrative system forand a description of the outcome. The Commission then uses the dealing with and sanctioning offences;data to present statistical information (i.e. the number of cases, there are no Community standards forthe number of cases where Member State authorities have inspection, so direct comparison is notdetected infringement by nationals and non-nationals, the possible; and, the levels of fishing andnumber of penalties/sanctions, the number of seizures, the enforcement effort are not taken intoaverage fine and the amount paid by the fishing industry in each account.member State as a consequence of serious infringement) thatallows for comparison between Member States.infringement Infringement procedure means any procedure adopted by the The following Member States hadprocedures Commission and formally initiated against a Member State for procedures against them in 2004:failure to comply with basic or secondary Community law (i.e.provisions in the Treaties, Regulations and other legislative For exceeding Member State quota:instruments). If the Commission considers a Member State has Finland (2), Denmark (10), Sweden (6)breached Community law, it asks the State concerned to presentits observations within a specified period of time by sending it a For failure to provide catch/fishing effortletter of formal notice. data: Sweden (1), Finland (1)if the State continues to fail to meet its obligations, and if the For failure to implement VMS:Commission does not change its views as a result of the Member Estonia (1)State’s observations in response to the letter of formal notice, theCommission then delivers a reasoned opinion with which themember State must comply within a given period. If the MemberState fails to do so, the Commission may then refer the matter tothe Court of Justice (this procedure is called a referral). The Courtof Justice delivers judgements on any matter referred to it, andthese judgements are then binding on the Member States. In004, 69 procedures were underway.– 38 –
Policy areas Policy theme Indicator How Baltic Member Statesperformed in 2004Verification of European The European Commission has a team of approximately 30 The BACOMA evaluation programmenational Commission Commission inspectors. Through “Missions” to the Member showed that all the relevant Membermonitoring/ inspections States and through the analysis of information gathered from States had implemented the BACOMAcontrol arrange- different sources, the inspectors observe and verify how the measures.ments andnational authorities have organised their control and inspectioninfringement activities, and how the rules of the CFP are practically applied. The VMS verification programproceduresE evaluation <strong>report</strong>s are produced summarising the findings, mes showed that not all legislation wasproviding data on the level of compliance of the Member States in place and the lack of a mandate oftenconcerned and drawing general conclusions. For example, in hindered the effective enforcement of the004 a BACOMA and VMS verification programme was CFP; not all vessels required to be fittedcarried out.with a VMS terminal had been; the VMSsystems of most of the Member States didin 2004, the following number of EU Commission inspection not demonstrate the potential to monitorvisits were made to the Baltic Member States: Denmark 6, and control fishing vessel activity; andestonia 2, Lithuania 2, Poland 2, Germany 6, Latvia 2, Finland 1 the technical aspects of most systemsand Sweden 5.were limited.The average financial penalty imposed by eachof the EU Baltic Sea Member States in 2003was: Denmark € 455, Germany € 379, Finland €282, Sweden € 742. These represent some of thelowest financial penalties for all the EU MemberStates in 2003, with Finland being the lowest ofall. The average between the Baltic States was €464.50 compared to an overall EU average of €4,664 – which was still considered to be whollyinadequate as a deterrent by the Commission.With respect to its effectiveness it can only beconcluded that the serious infringement <strong>report</strong>does not effectively achieve its aim of increasingtransparency, nor does it appear to have encouragedthe adoption of adequate and dissuasivesanctions.Infringement proceduresIn discussion with Commission representativesthey were of the opinion that, until recently,the long drawn-out process of infringementprocedures has not been an effective incentivein ensuring that Member States meet their CFPobligations. However, since July 2005 when theEuropean Court imposed considerable fines onFrance for failing to meet inspection requirements,there had been a sudden improvement inthe way in which Member States were <strong>report</strong>ingon many aspects of the CFP. Up until this pointit appears that Member States administrationshad not taken the Scoreboard seriously, consideringit a burden rather than a way of promotingimproved compliance.EU Commission inspectionsWith limited resources the Commission hasundertaken a considerable number of inspectionsthroughout the EU and, more specifically, theBaltic Sea. In some instances, for example VMSverification, significant failings were highlightedbut no indication on what follow up action theCommission intended to take was given. Withoutthis, anybody who is interested in equitable andtransparent application of the rules is left withmore questions than answers.Effectiveness of the Compliance ScoreboardThe Compliance Scoreboard has provided ameans by which comparisons between MemberStates can be made and inference drawn as towhich are “good” and “not so good” at meetingtheir CFP obligations. However, because someof the indicators are, at best, limited in theirmeaning, accurate comparison is not possible.Also, in some instances, the Scoreboard fails toshow what follow-up action the Commission istaking to ensure that a failing in compliance isimproved. As a result, there is little reassurancethat, at both the Member State and the Commissionlevel, effective systems are in place toimprove or <strong>report</strong> on compliance.Tri-annual Commission evaluation <strong>report</strong>sThe Commission has also chosen to use anexisting requirement, afforded by Article 35 ofthe Control Regulation (EEC No. 2847/93) 31 ,along with a more recent obligation, afforded by– 39 –
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 34 and 35: adopted in the North Sea, the Balti
Page 36 and 37: Table 6 Showing the indicators used
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?