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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7. The list of types of behaviour which are considered to be serious infringements of the CFP rules• Obstructing the work of fisheries inspectors• Falsifying, concealing, destroying or tampering with evidence• Obstructing the work of observers• Fishing without holding a fishing licence/permit or any other authorisation required for fishing• Fishing under cover of a falsified document• Falsifying, deleting or concealing the identification marks of the fishing vessel• Using or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear• Using prohibited fishing methods• Not lashing or stowing prohibited fishing gear• Directed fishing for, or keeping on board of, a species subject to a fishing prohibition• Unauthorised fishing• Failure to comply with minimum landing sizes• Failure to comply with the rules and procedures relating to transhipments• Falsifying or failing to record data in logbooks• Tampering with the satellite-based vessel monitoring system• Deliberate failure to comply with rules on remote transmission of movements of fishing vessels• Failure of a third country vessel to comply with the rules when operating in Community waters• Landing of fishery products not complying with the community rules on control and enforcement• Storing, processing, placing on sale, and/or transporting fish products not meeting marketing standardsArticle 27(4) of the reformed CFP FrameworkRegulation (EC No. 2371/2002), as a means ofimproving transparency. Under both of these,it is required to publish a tri-annual evaluation<strong>report</strong> on control and enforcement of the rules ofthe CFP by Member States. The <strong>report</strong>s are basedon annual control <strong>report</strong>s submitted by MemberStates and observations made by the Commission.The latest <strong>report</strong> was published in 2005 32 andcovers the pre-accession period 2000-2002. The<strong>report</strong> is supported by a 230-page annex thatprovides an evaluation of each Member State,including a description of the prominent featuresof the fisheries; the fisheries-related activities thatneed to be controlled; the legal and administrativesystem in place; a description of the existingmeans of control and their use in monitoring, inspectionand surveillance activities; a descriptionof the cooperation exercised both at national andinternational level; and, finally, the Commission’sassessment of the state of fisheries control in theMember State for the period in question.A summary of the findings of the <strong>report</strong> for Denmark,Sweden, Finland and Germany is providedin Annex IV.These <strong>report</strong>s are potentially very useful for comparingand contrasting the different approachesand issues in each Member State. However,because of the significant task in collating andputting this information together and becausethe Commission undertakes to provide MemberStates with an opportunity to comment as well asto suggest any additional topics to be included,by the time they enter the public domain, theyare minimally 3 years out of date. Also, the valueof the <strong>report</strong>s is diluted because the Commissiondoes not include how it has or intends to dealwith any shortfalls that may be described in theevaluations.Ad hoc stakeholder meetingsFinally, under the theme of transparency, theCommission has also committed to provide additionalinformation to stakeholders by conveningad hoc meetings specifically tailored to the exploitationof the stocks concerned in the relevantregions. With the emphasis on stock recoveryplans it seems likely that it will be within theseregions most of these meetings will take place.The regulatory frameworkAll of the EU Regulations that apply to the BalticSea cod fishery are listed in Annex V and, wherepossible, links provided. All Regulations that– 40 –
are applicable to the CFP can be found on theEuropean Commission’s Fisheries and MaritimeAffairs website at the following address:http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/doc_et_publ/factsheets/legal_texts/regl_en.htm#generalThis section focuses on the process and the consequenceof those regulations that allocate thecod quotas to each EU Baltic Member State andprovide technical conservation measures for theBaltic Sea cod fishery.The TAC and quota Regulation2005 marked the transition from the IBSFC tobi-lateral, annual agreement on TACs and quotasbetween the EU and the Russian Federation italso marked a change in the process and timetablefor their establishment.In June 2005, the Commission received ICES scientificadvice on fishing opportunities in the BalticSea for 2006. ICES advised the setting of twoseparate TACs: 28,400 tonnes and 14,900 tonnesfor the Western and Eastern Baltic, respectively.The Commission then called upon its ownadvisory committee the Scientific, Technical andEconomic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) 33 toassess the information and take into account economicconsequences of the ICES advice. This wasthe first time the STECF had been used in theBaltic Sea process as, up until then, this functionwas handled within the framework of the IBSFC.After receiving advice from the STECF the Commission,on behalf of the Community, attendedthe final meeting of the IBSFC in September anddiscussed the TAC, quotas as well as fishing conditionswith the Russian Federation. A proposedTAC of 28,400 and 45,339 tonnes for the westernand eastern stocks, respectively, was agreed.In an attempt to reduce the burden of work forthe Council at the end of year, the Commissionpresented its proposals to the Council in November34 for consideration; however, it was not untilthe December meeting that final negotiations andagreement took place.Traditionally the IBSFC had agreed one TAC forthe whole of the Baltic Sea, however, the Councilchose to accept ICES and Commission adviceand set two separate TACs. They set the Westerncod TAC at 28,400 tonnes and Eastern at 45,339tonnes.The Commission and the Council explained thatthey increased the Eastern TAC because of acombination of fishing effort reductions, seasonalclosures as well as strengthened control andmonitoring of fishing activities.In 2006, the Baltic Sea TACs for 2007 wereagreed at the October Fisheries Council meeting.ICES recommended a TAC of 24,500 tonnes forthe Western stock and a zero TAC for the Easternstock. ICES also stated that a recovery planshould be developed and implemented before afishery was re-opened. The Council set TACs of26,696 tonnes and 40,805 tonnes, respectively.These agreed TACs were conditional on the settingup of the cod multi-annual plan by 30 June2007. If an agreement is not reached by thatdate, the reductions will automatically increaseto 15% for the two stocks concerned.Furthermore, the number of fishing days wasreduced by 10%.Table 8. Shows a summary of the Baltic Sea cod TAC for 2006 and2007 and compares it with the ICES advice.ICES Advice for 2006cod TACs (tonnes)Agreed TACs cod(tonnes)Western Eastern Western Eastern8,400 14,900 8,400 45,339ICES Advice for 2007cod TACs (tonnes)Agreed TACs cod(tonnes),500 0 6,696 40,805Source: Data taken from Council Regulation (EC) No. 52/2006 &Commission Press release, October 2006Technical and control measuresCouncil Regulations EC No. 2187/2005 35 andEC No. 52/2006 provide the technical conservationmeasures and the conditions that presentlyapply for EU Baltic Member States and the codfishery. Both of them reflect the legacy of IBSFCregulations and newer EU measures.Council Regulation (EC) No. 2187/2005 - “forthe conservation of fishery resources throughtechnical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts andthe sound” provides new and up to date rules onall the fisheries in the Baltic Sea. The intention– 41 –
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 38 and 39: Policy areas Policy theme Indicator
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?