Annex to the

Document Sample
Annex to the Powered By Docstoc
					              COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES




                                      Brussels, 4.1.2005
                                      SEC(2004) 1718




              COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT


                          Annex to the

                  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION


     ON THE MONITORING OF THE MEMBER STATES’ IMPLEMENTATION
             OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY 2000 - 2002



                        {COM(2004)849 final}




EN                                                            EN
                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

     PROLOGUE............................................................................................................................... 3

     BELGIUM.................................................................................................................................. 4
     DENMARK.............................................................................................................................. 21
     FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 40
     FRANCE .................................................................................................................................. 59
     GERMANY.............................................................................................................................. 78
     GREECE .................................................................................................................................. 95
     IRELAND .............................................................................................................................. 110
     ITALY .................................................................................................................................. 130
     NETHERLANDS................................................................................................................... 145
     PORTUGAL........................................................................................................................... 159
     SPAIN .................................................................................................................................. 176
     SWEDEN ............................................................................................................................... 193
     UNITED KINGDOM............................................................................................................. 209




EN                                                                        2                                                                         EN
     PROLOGUE

          This Working Document of the Commission is closely connected with the
          multiannual report from the Commission on the implementation of the control
          system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy. It has been finalised by the
          Commission within the framework of Article 35 of the Control Regulation1. Each
          Working Document comprises a description of a Member State’s system for fisheries
          control and of the scope of its fisheries-related activities, forming the necessary
          background for the synthesis and analysis made in the main report. The landlocked
          Member States have not been dealt with.

          Each presentation commences by summarising the most prominent features of the
          fisheries and fisheries-related activities to be controlled, followed by an explanation
          of the legal and administrative system in place. Furthermore, there is a description of
          the existing means of control and their utilisation in monitoring, inspection and
          surveillance activities. The report then goes on to describe the co-operation exercised
          both at national and international level. Finally, added to these factual descriptions is
          the Commission’s assessment of the state of fisheries control in the Member State for
          the period in question.

          The contents of the Member State description included in this document have been
          derived both from the annual control reports submitted by the Member State, as
          obliged by Article 35 of the Control Regulation, and from observations made by the
          Commission. The draft of this document has been communicated to the Member
          State, which has then had an opportunity to comment on it as well as to suggest any
          additional topics to be included. The comments received have, where appropriate,
          been taken into account and incorporated in the text.




     1
         Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
         the common fisheries policy (OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993).




EN                                                   3                                                        EN
                                          BELGIUM

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            Belgium has the smallest fishing industry within the Members States carrying out
            maritime fisheries.

     1.1.   Fleet

            Beam trawlers comprise 94.6 % of the Belgian fishing fleet. Otter trawl and gill nets
            are used by a limited number of vessels. The beam trawlers are further subdivided
            into vessels for inshore fisheries, with engine power less than 221 kW, and large
            beam trawlers for offshore fisheries. Most of these latter are based in Zeebrugge.

            From 2000 to 2002, the fleet increased from 127 to 130 vessels and the total engine
            power from 63,355.00 kW to 67,774.00 kW.

            According to the main Commission Decision 98/128/EC, to meet the Belgium
            objectives for MAGP IV the Belgium fleet has been divided into 2 segments. The
            first segment, the most important, concerns beam trawlers (4A1), and the second the
            otter board trawlers (4A2).

            There is no segment or scheme for small vessels under 12 meters, since there are no
            active fishing vessels in Belgium of this size.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            For 2001, the total fishing opportunities coming from initial quota allocated to
            Belgium was 34,160 tonnes. Among the most important species, herring accounted
            for 7,528 tonnes, plaice 6,025, sole 4,155 and cod 3,385 tonnes.

            These fishing opportunities represent about 115 % of annual Belgium catches which
            are approximately 30,000 tonnes.

            However, on 41 occasions in 2000 and 2001, Belgium exchanged quota with other
            Member States under Article 9 (1) of Council regulation (EEC) N° 3760/92.

     1.3.   National system for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            Fleet and fishing opportunities are managed through limitation of fleet capacity by
            application of the MAGP IV rules, reduction of fishing effort and quota
            management.

            The national fleet register is kept by the Sea Fisheries Service (SFS) of the Ministry
            of Small and Medium Size Business and Agriculture (of the Ministry of the Flemish
            Community since October 2002), on a computer based system. The data concerning
            the fishing vessels characteristics are extracted from certificates issued by the
            Maritime Inspection (MI) of the Ministry of Traffic and Infrastructure and
            transmitted to the SFS in the course of the vessel licensing procedure. The inspectors



EN                                               4                                                   EN
     of the MI visit all the vessels yearly to ensure the correctness of the registered vessels
     data. The tonnage of all vessels has been re-measured and registered according to
     ICT standards in GT.

     The main legal basis for the Belgian fleet management is the Royal Decision of 21
     June 1994 (hereafter the Licence Decision) for the implementation of the fishing
     licence and temporary measures for the execution of the Community regulations for
     the protection and management of fish stocks. According to Article 2 (1) of the
     Licence Decision, every fishing vessel must have a fishing licence issued by the SFS
     to its owner. The validity of the licence is indeterminate. These licences are not
     allowed to be transferred (sold or rented) unless the vessel changes owner. The
     concept of a fishing vessel has been defined in Article 1 to comprise all vessels
     equipped for the commercial exploitation of sea resources.

     As regards licensing of new fishing vessels – newly constructed or imported – the
     engine power of the new vessel must not be higher than the substituted engine power,
     and the tonnage expressed in GT of a new beam trawler is not allowed to be larger
     than 0.3 times the retired engine power expressed in kW. The amendments by the
     royal decision of 13 May 1999 reintroduced the possibility to aggregate the engine
     powers of several former vessels into the single engine power of a new vessel.

     If the vessel owner does not utilise the whole engine power or tonnage of the former
     vessel for the substitution, the remainder is withdrawn by SFS for the further
     disposal of the Ministry. However, the ship owner may preserve some of the engine
     power, which cannot be utilised in the new vessel for technical reasons, for further
     use as “additional engine power”. This power is indicated on the licence. The new
     vessel has to belong to the same segment as the one replaced.

     Pursuant to the Licence Decision, a licence can be issued with restrictions or
     conditions concerning notably the characteristics of vessels or the fishing methods,
     areas or gears in order to take into account Common Fisheries Policy requirements.
     The licence decision also contains provisions concerning the actual economic links
     that Belgium fishing vessels are obliged to maintain with their flag state. Mainly, half
     of the crew must have permanent residence in the Belgium coastal area, half of the
     catches are to be landed in Belgium harbours and a substantial part of catches have to
     be sold through local auctions, or a combination of above mentioned criteria together
     with the opportunity for the vessel owner to propose other criteria. If the restrictions
     or conditions attached to the licence or required by Licence Decision have not been
     met, the ministry may withdraw the licence.

     The national legal foundation of the Belgium quota and effort allocation and
     management is formed by the Delegation Law and subsequently the Licence
     Decision. In accordance with the Licence Decision, the Ministry is empowered to
     pass legislation in these matters, and every year it adopts a Quota Decision, next to
     Community regulations, in order to manage the quota allocated to Belgium. The
     quota decisions are amended several times during their one year period of validity.
     The Belgium Producers’ Organisations do not have any competencies regarding
     quota allocation or management other than to provide relevant advice to the
     authorities.




EN                                          5                                                     EN
              The main goal is to spread the quota uptake over the full year taking into account
              biological restrictions and seasonal fluctuations. The fishery for sole is particularly
              restricted. In the North Sea each vessel is allocated with a fixed basic sole quota.
              This allocation, where a difference is made between vessels below and over 221 kW,
              is increased with an extra allocation per kW. The formula is fixed twice a year for
              vessels below 221 kW and three times a year for vessels over 221kW in relation to
              the evolution in quota uptake for sole during the year. Outside the North Sea sole
              catches are limited trough maximum catch levels per day or per hour presence in an
              ICES area. For the Bay of Biscay (ICES areas VIIIa and VIIIb) quota uptake is
              limited through special fishing permits.

              All fisheries for plaice are restricted by maximum catches per day at sea. Cod stocks
              are restricted through maximum day catch levels. For a large selection of species a so
              called ‘by-catch rule’ is drawn up. Haddock, mackerel, herring, flounder, dab, witch,
              lemon sole and whiting catches are restricted through maximum catch levels per day.
              Targeting these species is therefore made impossible. Restrictions are introduced for
              certain fishing methods. It was notably forbidden to fish for cod with pair trawls in
              2000, 2001 and 2002.

              In Belgium, the national measures concerning fishing effort management have to
              take into account the requirements set out both by the MAGP IV framework and by
              the effort regulation in Western Waters, particularly in ICES areas V–VIII. To meet
              these objectives the Belgian fisheries administration traditionally uses both
              legislative and administrative instruments. The most important statute has usually
              been the yearly Quota Decision. In addition, the SFS has taken care of the
              administration and the daily management of the fishing effort.

              By fixing a total available catch per hour or per day at sea by vessel, according to the
              involved segment, species and area, the yearly Quota Decision manages directly the
              fishing opportunities and the fleet capacity by limiting the fishing effort. It goes even
              further by fixing also a maximum number of days at sea for all vessels. This number
              cannot exceed 95 days for each period of four months. If a vessel does not utilise all
              its days during a period, they can be transferred to the following one, as long as the
              transfers are not extended to the next calendar year. Thus, for 2000 and 2001, the
              yearly maximum for each vessel amounted to 285 days at sea (265 days for the
              vessels which were tied up in spring 2001) and 235 days in the North Sea. For 2002
              the yearly maximum was 260 days at sea.

              As regards sole fisheries, the licence can be withdrawn for a number of days
              depending on the amount of sole fished in excess of the licence requirements. The
              quantity of sole fished in excess, multiplied with a factor 1.2, will be deducted from
              next period’s quota for that vessel. In case of repeated infractions, the amount of
              deducted days may be doubled.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Belgian sovereignty or jurisdiction

              The Belgian coastline is 66 km long and national waters cover a 3,600 km² area in
              the North Sea




EN                                                   6                                                    EN
              Under the provisions governing access to coastal waters, as defined in Council
              Regulation (EC) N° 2371/2002, Dutch fishing vessels and French fishing vessels
              targeting herring have access to Belgian territorial waters between 12 and 3 nautical
              miles. Extended access into the three-mile zone is allowed to Dutch vessels by virtue
              of the Benelux Agreements.

              Access to the three-nautical mile zone is nevertheless restricted for Belgian as well as
              Dutch fishing vessels due to the closure of that area for fishing vessels exceeding 70
              GT. (Flemish decree of 13 December 2002 amending Royal decree of 14 August
              1989).

              A bilateral Franco-Belgian agreement covers the fisheries for herring and sprat in the
              territorial waters. Another Franco-Belgian agreement covers cross border fisheries
              for shrimps.

     1.4.2.   International and third country waters

              Most of the Belgian fishing fleet operates outside the national fishing zone in
              Community waters (North Sea, Irish Sea, the English Channel, the Bristol Channel,
              Southwest Ireland and the French EEZ, i.e. Bay of Biscay). Depending on the season
              some Belgian fishing vessels are active in the Norwegian EEZ.

     1.4.3.   Landings

              The Belgian fleet is concentrated in three ports, Zeebrugge, Oostende and
              Nieuwpoort. Although some vessels are registered in Blankenberge, this port is a
              marina and no fishing vessels are allowed to land or enter the harbour. Zeebrugge is
              by far the most important port with 75 vessels, more than half the Belgian fishing
              fleet and 72 % of total engine power.

              Main target species of the Belgian fleet are plaice (26.3 %), sole (18 %) and cod
              (11.6 %).

              The year 2002 was characterised by a decrease in the landings and subsequent sales
              by Belgian vessels in the ports of other Member States. Compared to 2000, the
              proportion of landings in these ports of the total landings of the Belgian fleet
              decreased from 33 % in 2001 to 24.6 % in 2002. Dutch harbours account for 97.5 %
              of these landings (mostly flatfish). This can be explained by the fact that about 22
              Belgian vessels are actually operated by shipowners in the Netherlands. A significant
              proportion of fish marketed in Belgium comes from landings of Belgian vessels in
              UK harbours. The quantities landed are then transported by lorry to Belgian auctions.

              Due to the implementation of the previously mentioned Royal Decree of 3 February
              1999 implementing a so called ‘Economic link’ rule, the landings in Belgian ports by
              Belgian registered but Dutch owned fishing vessels are increasing considerably.

              In 2002, the total landings in Belgium harbours consisted of 19,455 tonnes for a
              value of 71.4 M€ (+ 4.5% compared to 2001) and of 6,354 tonnes for 20.5 M€ (-
              27.56 % compared to 2001) abroad.




EN                                                  7                                                    EN
     1.4.4.   Import, processing and transport.

              The processing industry is heavily dependent on fish transported from other Member
              States. Transports from EU countries have increased whereas imports from third
              countries have decreased. Export has increased by 10 % in both volume and value.
              The amount of imported fresh fish increased significantly.

              The Belgian fisheries industry employs 745 people, of whom an estimated 90 work
              part time. More than half of the employment is concentrated in the Brugge region.
              The processing industry employs almost 1,300 people.

              In 2000, the total import of fishing products for Belgium (and Luxemburg) reached
              301,165 tonnes and the total export 122,906 tonnes.


     2.       LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.     Legislation and administration

              The main legal basis for fisheries activities consists of the Fishing Law of 19 August
              1891 as amended, of the Delegation Law of 12 April 1957 as amended and of the
              Law of 10 October 1978 fixing the Belgian Fisheries Zone also as amended. These
              three laws deal with infringements and sanctions but also contain delegation
              provisions, forming the basis for secondary legislation. The last amendments of these
              were provided by the Law of 22 April 1999, concerning the Belgium EEZ. The
              adoption of the EEZ law was preceded by a general codification of the existing
              fisheries laws as concerns the description of procedures and the harmonisation of
              penalties and sanction levels.

              Until the 1st January 2002, the overall responsibilities of monitoring fisheries
              activities were entrusted to the Ministry of Small and Medium Size Business and
              Agriculture, located in Brussels. As a result of the last institutional reform, in
              accordance with Law of 13 July 2001, this Ministry was dismantled and its
              responsibilities handed over to two regional Ministries in Flanders and Wallonia. The
              Department of Agricultural Policy of the Ministry of the Flemish Community is now
              fully responsible for sea fisheries matters since 1 January 2002. All primary legal
              acts as well as the secondary fisheries legislation adopted by the former national
              Ministry have been taken over and adopted by the Flemish government.

              In spite of this change in the superior administrative structure, the authority which is
              responsible for fisheries control and enforcement has remained unchanged. In
              accordance with the Law of 28th March 1975 on trade in agricultural and fisheries
              products, the practical implementation and enforcement of general fisheries policy is
              the responsibility of the Sea Fisheries Service (Dienst Zeevisserij, SFS), a part of the
              ministry located in Oostende. Thus, the SFS maintains the Belgian fishing fleet
              register, issues licences and takes care of the quota management. It is also
              responsible for day to day monitoring and control of fisheries activities.

              In addition to the SFS, various different authorities (separate branches of police,
              veterinary services, Belgian Navy, customs etc.) have been practically and legally




EN                                                  8                                                    EN
            entrusted with tasks related to fisheries control. The main responsibility in this field
            remains however firmly with the SFS.

            Landing controls are entirely carried out by the personnel of the SFS based in
            Oostende. The Belgian Navy patrols the territorial waters and the EEZ, and three
            Navy vessels are appointed to do fishery patrols (although in theory all Navy vessels
            can be involved in fisheries inspections). The commander and the second in
            command (fishery officer) are empowered to carry out inspections and to draft
            statements concerning detected infringements. Fishery patrols are carried out in close
            co-operation with the SFS, and often with a fisheries inspector from SFS on board.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            The powers of control entrusted to the officials from the different authorities have
            been prescribed in the above mentioned laws (Article 3 of the Fishing Law, Article 2
            of the Delegation Law and Article 4 of the Law on the Belgian Fisheries Zone), with
            identical formulations in all these provisions. In accordance with the amendments
            provided by the EEZ law from 1999, the SFS is empowered to carry out autonomous
            sea inspections in the whole Belgian EEZ.

            The officials of the SFS, designated by the Minister, have full investigative and
            enforcement powers under these fisheries laws. They are entitled to visit fishing
            vessels, factories, warehouses, processing plants, offices, transport means, auctions,
            markets, cold stores etc., and to receive documentation for examination. They have
            the powers to seize hardware containing electronically stored information. They are
            also empowered to inspect, search and detain vessels as well as to seize catches or
            gear. All designated officials are empowered to investigate infringements of the law
            and to establish such infringements through the drafting of a statement, a “process-
            verbaal” (PV), and that the evidence contained in this statement is presumed to be
            true until proven otherwise.

            The 1975 law contains similar provisions as regards the control and inspection of
            activities in the commercialisation of fish.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The system in place in Belgium for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is one
            predominantly based on criminal procedure. Infringements are reported directly by
            the designated fisheries inspectors to the prosecutor, prosecution is initiated and the
            matter is decided by a court of first instance. In a very limited number of cases
            administrative sanctions can also be imposed.

            The rules of the CFP are directly applicable and incorporated in national legislation.
            The provisions that define infringements and prescribe the penal consequences,
            namely Article 6 of the 1891 law, Article 3 of the 1957 law and Article 6 of the 1978
            law, are therefore fairly general. They simply state that a contravention of the rules
            contained in these laws shall be punished. In addition they expressly state that
            obstruction of inspectors’ work or refusal to obey orders issued by the competent
            authorities may be punishable, as well as knowingly providing false information.




EN                                                9                                                    EN
     Article 6 of the 1975 law, more specifically concerning the trade in fisheries and
     agricultural products, contains some penal provisions which are more detailed and
     directed specifically at the commercialisation of fish.

     In almost all cases the liable party will be an individual. For infringements
     committed in the course of a fisheries related activity, it will thus normally be the
     master of the fishing vessel who is liable. Since July 1999 there is a possibility to
     prosecute the company that owns the vessel, in addition to the master of the vessel,
     and this applies to all infringements. Although the authorities view this as a useful
     tool, the practical use of it has so far been very limited.

     Article 6 of the 1891 law, Article 3 of the 1957 law and Article 6 of the 1978 law
     prescribe the penalties for fisheries infringements. The primary sanctions provided
     for are prison from 15 days to five years, or a fine ranging from € 1,500 to 100,000 .
     These amounts are multiplied by a factor 5.

     Fines and imprisonment can be wholly or partially conditional. Therefore, although
     the minimum fine is € 7,500, the courts will regularly decide that only a part of the
     fine is payable, and that the rest is conditional on future behaviour. A typical
     example would be that the court sets the fine at € 7,500 but decides that only two
     tenths of this fine shall be paid by the offender. If he commits the same infringement
     again within three years, there will be execution of the rest. This should primarily be
     used in the case of less serious infringements or in relation to first offenders, but it
     would appear that conditional fines, resulting in a payable amount which is lower
     than the minimum fine, are used rather frequently.

     In the 1975 law on commercialisation of fisheries products the minimum fine is €
     500, while the maximum is the same as above.

     There may be confiscation of forfeiture of catch or gear. If a catch has been seized
     and sold, the counter value of the catch will be deposited on the public prosecution’s
     account until the case is judged. If the judgement is in favour of the accused the
     money is returned, otherwise it will be forfeited. The court can also forfeit the
     economic gain of an offence when a seizure has not been made, e.g. when the
     infringement has been discovered through control of submitted catch documentation.

     A fishery licence may, if the conditions for its issuing are not fulfilled, be withdrawn
     by the issuing authority (i.e. the SFS). An appeal procedure is foreseen in case of
     such a decision. A licence can be withdrawn when the so called “Economic link” rule
     is not complied with or when vessels over-fish their assigned quota. The conditions
     for these rules are laid down in specific Ministerial Decrees concerning temporary
     measures for the conservation of sea fishery resources.

     Although there is no legal basis for issuing verbal warnings, the use of verbal
     warnings is rather common. Verbal warnings are only used for minor infringements,
     where the issuing of a PV would be considered disproportionate in relation to the
     infringement. The fact that a verbal warning has been issued may be mentioned in a
     subsequent PV if another infringement is detected later. The 1975 law provides the
     possibility for inspectors to issue a written warning, which must be sent to the
     offender within 15 days from when the infringement was detected. The warnings
     have to mention the qualification of the infringement, the deadline within which the



EN                                         10                                                   EN
            infringement has to stop and the fact that legal proceedings can start if the offender
            does not comply with the warning.

            There are legal provisions for introducing administrative sanctions, but there are no
            application regulations passed to date. The legal basis is Article 8 in the 1975 law.
            The only administrative sanctions in use are sanctions for infractions against the
            rules on quota uptake for sole in the North Sea and the rules on days at sea. These
            rules can be found in a Ministerial decree concerning temporary measures for the
            conservation of sea fishery resources. As regards sole fisheries, the license can be
            withdrawn for a number of days depending on the amount of sole fished in excess of
            the license requirements.

            When an infringement has been detected, the inspectors draft a statement, the PV.
            This statement shall contain a description of the facts, and often contains – although
            this is not obligatory – a qualification of the infringement and references to
            applicable legislation. The inspector must also carry out a valuation of the fish to
            which the infringement refers, which then constitutes the economic gain that the
            fisherman would have from the infringement, and this evaluation shall be mentioned
            in the statement. The suspected offender must be given the opportunity to submit his
            own statement. He is also entitled to receive copies of the official statement and to
            ask for additional investigations to be carried out.

            One prosecutor in Brugge is assigned to deal with all fisheries related offences. The
            PV issued by the inspection service is submitted to the prosecutor, who must decide
            within a legally defined timeframe whether legal procedures are to be instituted. The
            prosecutor has discretionary powers to dismiss a case, but this happens very rarely.
            He may also order that further investigations are carried out, either by fisheries
            inspectors or by other authorities such as the tax authorities, the police etc. If the
            prosecutor decides to proceed, the case will be heard in a criminal court, the court of
            first instance in Brugge. As an alternative to prosecution, the prosecutor is
            empowered to compound infringements, i.e. he may refrain from prosecution if the
            offender agrees to the payment of a fine for which the level is set by the prosecutor.

            The prosecutor may propose the level of the fine to be set, but the final decision
            belongs to the judge. In most cases the court will however follow the suggestions
            made by the prosecutor.

            An appeal in ordinary fisheries cases can be made from the court of first instance to
            the higher court (Appeal Court of Gent).


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            In the reference period the following expenditure was made for fisheries control.

                    2000                 2001                  2002

                 € 210,000             € 105,000            € 105,000




EN                                                 11                                                 EN
            It should be noted that these costs involve those for providing a physical presence of
            the inspectors in the ports, and exclude salaries. In general there are no budgetary
            restrictions concerning the general execution of inspection tasks – overtime, night
            shifts, week-end work etc. Costs for the aircraft are also met from this budgetary
            allocation – approximately € 50,000 per annum.

            The costs involved with maritime surface patrol and surveillance were covered by
            the budget of the Defence Ministry (Naval Service).

            The costs in 2000 were substantially higher and are attributable to the creation of the
            national FMC and installation of VMS.

     3.2.   Human resources

            There were a total of 5 inspectors at the SFS, comprising the chief-inspector and 4
            full-time inspectors involved in control activity.

            Other authorities involved with control are the maritime police (Scheepvaartpolitie)
            which have merged with the federal police services and the Customs Service. Both
            these authorities have the competencies to carry out inspections on board fishing
            vessels and in the auctions. Although these services work closely with the fisheries
            service on co-ordinated operations, their main task is not fishery inspection.

     3.3.   Other resources

            In 2002 maritime control was carried out using three vessels of the Belgian Navy
            (the ‘Valcke’, ‘Albatros’ and ‘Stern’), and these vessels have been exclusively tasked
            to fishery protection. The SFS also had two fully equipped RIB’s (Rigid Inflatable
            Boats) at its disposal. One of these can be embarked aboard the naval vessels if
            necessary. These RIB’s are also used in co-operation with the BMM (Environmental
            department) for a wide range of marine protection tasks (pollution, water sampling
            etc). They were also used autonomously by the inspection service.

            The naval patrol vessels do not have access to live VMS data but receive a daily
            update via e-mail of all position reports in the Belgium EEZ.

            For aerial surveillance there is use of a military aircraft (Islander class) normally
            used by the Environmental Department. This aircraft is tasked to fisheries
            surveillance for a total of 40 hours per year and has night flying capability.

            Because the Belgian fisheries inspection service is relatively small, all training is
            organised within the service. In the past courses were organised (in co-operation with
            the prosecutors office and the police) concerning report writing, sea survival,
            fisheries-law, conflict management etc. The fisheries service organises an annual
            training programme for naval crew and other authorities involved in fisheries
            protection.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            During the period 2000 – 2002, the Community financial contribution allocated to
            Belgium for fisheries control was as follows (in €):



EN                                               12                                                   EN
                        2000                           2001                        2002

                       57,016                          25,409                     124,539

            Procedures for acquiring communications and positioning equipment for the vessels
            of the Navy were initiated by the Department of Defence in 2001.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control data bases

            The main control database is the ‘QUOVIS’ application which has been fully
            operational since 2001. This database is accessible to inspectors and statisticians, and
            all data concerning the fleet register, fishing effort, quota management, landings and
            sales are managed through this system.

            Inspectors also have access to the FMC database and therefore historic and “live-
            time” VMS information.

            All data from logsheets, landing declarations and sales notes collated in the SFS in
            Oostende are, with a few exceptions, received and processed within 48 hours of the
            fish appearing on the auction. The return rate of EC logbooks is over 99% and sales-
            note data from auctions 100%.

            The supply and quality of catch registration data in Belgium depend on the fact that
            almost all fish is sold via the auction system. The three auctions send sales data via
            an electronic link direct into the ‘QUOVIS’ system. According to the SFS the
            relevant documentation of at least 75% of landings is cross-checked during these
            procedures.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions in Article of 3 (1) of the Control Regulation the Belgian
            national authorities have established a satellite based monitoring system to monitor
            the positions of Community vessels. The national authorities have a control
            methodology in place to monitor vessels with a VMS derogation in order to ensure
            compliance.

            The Belgian FMC in Oostende has been operational since February 2000. In total
            some 104 Belgian vessels have been required to provide position reports. Technical
            and operational measures were adopted to ensure that the VMS is fully operational.

            The Belgian authorities have transmitted to the other Member State a comprehensive
            list of latitude and longitude co-ordinates which delimit its EEZ. Remote access by
            DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing the data recorded by the
            Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) has been provided.

            In the context of article 3 (7) of the Control Regulation, the core elements necessary
            to fulfil these requirements have been put in place. During 2001 and 2002, the
            authorities initiated 17 prosecutions using VMS data as evidence.



EN                                                13                                                   EN
     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Belgian sovereignty or jurisdiction

            Belgian waters (exclusively within ICES area IVc) are fished by vessels from several
            Member States – notably from France, the Netherlands and the UK, and there is also
            some more limited activity by Danish and German vessels. There is a high level of
            collaboration between the various services involved in maritime surveillance. Data
            originating from the FMC or from surveillance flights are used to plan or co-ordinate
            sea-going patrols. The aircraft and FPV’s concentrate their efforts on those areas
            where fishing activity is expected to be the most intensive or where there is a distinct
            prospect that there is non-compliance with the rules in force.

            During the period 2000 to 2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general
            EEZ, the national 3 and 12 mile limits in regard to access, technical measures and
            enforcement in the designated ‘conservation box’ for cod. In the period 2000 to 2002
            some 242 days were spent by vessels of the Naval Service on surveillance at sea. A
            total of 564 vessels were inspected.

            Aerial surveillance in the same period show a total duration of 117 flying hours, with
            the aircraft reporting 633 sightings.

     5.2.   International waters and third country waters

            Under operational protocols with the inspection services of other Member States, the
            Belgian authorities participate in control activity in waters adjoining their own EEZ.
            In conjunction with the UK and the Netherlands there are joint operations under the
            ‘Shark’ operational framework. Such joint operations are targeted at large beam
            trawlers who operate on the median lines of the respective Member State waters.

            Belgian fishery patrol vessels do not operate in international or Third country waters.

            As part of a programme of joint surveillance of the closed area for cod in the
            southern North Sea in 2001, the Belgian authorities allowed their patrol aircraft to
            operate over UK and Dutch waters.

            As part of its integrated system of control the inspection service utilise VMS
            information to monitor and cross check against EC logbooks the activities of Belgian
            vessels.

            During the reference period Belgian vessels were also active in the waters of the UK,
            France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Ireland. The only Third country
            involved was Norway.

     5.3.   Landings

            In 2002 there were a total of 4 shore based inspectors who undertook controls in the
            ports. The main purpose of physical checks on landings has been identified as the
            verification of:

            •     Compliance with technical measures – minimum sizes, by-catches, etc.




EN                                                14                                                   EN
            •     Compliance with control measures – transport documentation, quota
                  restrictions, logbooks, declared landings, etc.

            •     The level of compliance with common marketing standards.

            In the period 2000 to 2002 approximately 211 days were spent in the ports on
            inspection activity. These inspections encompassed all aspects of control including
            logbook checks, vessel hold and gear inspection, box weighing and the grading and
            labelling of fish finally displayed on the auction floor. Due to the small coastal area
            and the one centralised inspection service, a common inspection methodology was
            applied.

            Owing to the small number of ports where fish can be landed and sold – namely
            Zeebrugge, Oostende and Nieuwpoort – and the fact that for most of the year the
            national fleet operates outside the national fishing zone, on-shore inspections have
            been defined as a priority. The SFS has estimated that approximately 20% of all
            landings are subject to monitoring at the time of discharge. In regards to
            administrative cross checks they estimate that 75% of EC logsheets and sales-notes
            are subject to scrutiny as a routine follow up.

            The main auctions for demersal catches are held on Mondays, Wednesdays and
            Fridays, but on other days fish is still sold from the smaller coastal vessels – mostly
            shrimp landings. However, fishing vessels may enter harbours and land their catches
            at any time. Landing controls are therefore planned, at short notice, in anticipation of
            the busier days. Due to the possibility that vessels can land at any time and that no
            system of prior notification is in place, the Belgian authorities do recognise the fact
            that undeclared landings can occur – both for quota and tax evasion purposes. To
            help combat this practice, national laws have been implemented so that boxes of fish
            may not be transported without an identification label of the vessel being applied and
            landing declarations have to be completed before the fish is sold.

            The inspectors regularly use VMS tracking updates in order to anticipate vessels
            heading for ports, which helps them plan their inspection presence accordingly.

            The Rederscentrale Producer Organisation plays no part in controlling the activities
            of its vessels in regards to vessel quotas allocated. Its role is mainly concerned with
            the sale and marketing of the catches of its members.

            When Belgian vessels land in other Member States, there is a good system of co-
            operation on the exchange of all landings data. The SFS has developed a
            comprehensive framework to ensure that all EC logsheets and sales-notes are
            received. This system also ensures that reciprocal arrangements exist when other
            Member State vessels land in Belgium.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The SFS is the designated authority with the obligation to ensure that there is
            compliance with all fisheries legislation, including common marketing standards. In
            practice, the SFS is not directly involved in the daily monitoring of the common
            marketing standards at fish auctions, and the PO plays the leading part in this respect
            – on average some 95% of the fish sold each morning comes from vessels belonging



EN                                                15                                                   EN
            to this PO. The auction authorities themselves deal with the classification and
            labelling of fish caught by vessels not belonging to the Rederscentrale.

            The SFS actively engages in the controls of illegal landings activity and checks for
            undersized fish which cannot be marketed through official channels. These
            inspections reach as far as the retail level.

            The SFS is also responsible for control before and after first sale, notably in respect
            of checking transport documents. These checks take place as a matter of routine
            during the presence of the inspectors on the auctions and verification of these
            documents is given a high priority. According to the Belgian authorities road
            transports are also regularly checked on their way to and from the auctions.

            The inspection unit of the Ministry of Economic Affairs undertakes random checks
            on compliance with withdrawal prices and on the verification that fish is disposed of
            correctly in the cases of intervention. However, the SFS is responsible for providing
            the certification involved.

            In the reference period no infractions were detected in respect of market support
            policy.

     5.5.   Information on inspection and surveillance activity

            The number of days spent on port inspections in Belgium amounted to 74 in 2000, 68
            in 2001 and 69 in 2002. At sea there were 89 inspection days in 2000, 65 in 2001 and
            88 in 2002. The numbers of boardings were 314, 91 and 159 respectively. In addition
            there were during the reference period approximately 40 hours of air surveillance per
            year.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Council Regulations (CE) N° 1447/1999 and N° 2740/1999, the
            Belgium authorities reported to the Commission that they detected for the years
            2000-2002, respectively 68, 56 and 49 serious infringements, of which 57 % in 2001
            and 49 % in 2002 concerned vessels flying the Belgium flag or involving Belgium
            fishermen. The remainder concerned vessels for which the flag or the nationality was
            not specified. In 2000 and 2002, most of the cases, respectively 23 and 21 cases,
            concerned the falsifying of data required in control document (category E1). In 2001,
            most of the cases, 21, concerned unauthorised fishing (category D5). Criminal
            procedures were initiated in all cases of serious infringements. Penalties were
            imposed in 18 cases in 2001, of which 5 were for unauthorised fishing, and in 31
            cases in 2002.

            In 2001, the average fine applied in 11 cases was € 2,356 and ranged from € 7,436
            for using or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear or devices affecting the
            selectiveness of gear (D1) to € 869 for unauthorised fishing (D5). In 11 cases,
            Belgium ordered the seizure of catches; in 2 cases for unauthorised fishing (D5) and
            in 9 cases for falsifying of the data required in the control documents (E1). No
            licence withdrawals were reported by Belgium.




EN                                               16                                                   EN
            In 2002, the average fine was € 1,143, concerning in fact only two types of
            behaviour, the tampering with the VMS (E2), for which the fine was € 1,500, and the
            falsifying of the data required in the control documents (E1), for which the average
            fine was € 1,083. Belgium in addition ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 10
            cases. Again no licence withdrawals were reported.


     6.     COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            Regular meetings are organised with the different authorities involved in fishery
            control for the co-ordination of control activities. Joint inspections are organised by
            the SFS in order to combine all the competencies of the authorities involved. This is
            focused on achieving optimum efficiency and effectiveness from the available
            resources in line with defined control priorities and objectives.

            Most authorities having an interest in working with the SFS have assigned inspectors
            for specific tasks. In this way communication between the different authorities is
            made transparent and co-operation is possible at very short notice, thus avoiding
            lengthy administrative procedures. Lines of communication are also established
            between the inspection service and the prosecutor’s office assigned to fishery cases.
            This allows feed-back on the evolution and the final outcome of court cases.

            The SFS has compiled a compendium of fisheries control legislation for use by the
            Naval Service and other authorities involved in fisheries inspection work. At
            operational level there exists a consultation structure plus a control working group -
            Kustwacht. At the policy level the North Sea Interdepartmental Economic Committee
            deals with the co-ordinated deployment of resources at sea. All departments and units
            with competencies relating to the sea are represented on this body.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            Throughout the period in question, Belgium continued to co-operate with
            neighbouring Member States, especially the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and to a
            lesser extent France. Part of this scheme of co-operation involved an exchange of
            inspection personnel. This made the communication between inspectors from
            different Member States much easier.

            In respect of overland fish appearing on the markets, a practical framework for the
            exchange of information and intelligence has been developed. This is most
            noticeable with the UK where lorries containing catches of Belgian vessels
            discharging in British ports are sealed by local inspectors upon departure. The lorry
            can then be inspected by Belgian Inspectors in Belgium upon arrival. The exchange
            of EC logsheets and other useful information between the Belgium, UK and Dutch
            authorities is undertaken systematically.

            Co-operation at sea consists mostly of joint fishery patrols – the so called ‘Shark’
            operations. In these exercises, cross-border ship to ship communications enable
            fishing vessels to be tracked and inspected on both sides of international maritime




EN                                                17                                                  EN
          borders. This has proven to be very effective in cases of fishing vessels trying to
          avoid inspections by crossing into the waters of a neighbouring Member State.

          In 2000 Belgium established operational protocols in relation to the supply of VMS
          data with other MS and the European Commission


     7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

          Belgium has by far the smallest fishing industry within the Members States carrying
          out maritime fisheries.

          Belgium has implemented a control system for fishing activities in accordance with
          the requirements set out in the Control Regulation. The legal basis and the
          administrative structures adopted by Belgium provide a framework for the
          implementation and enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy. In accordance
          with the last national institutional reform of 2001, the responsibilities for practical
          implementation and enforcement of the fisheries remain with the Sea Fisheries
          Service, although the responsibility for policy and legislation has been transferred
          from federal level to the Department of Agriculture Policy of the Ministry of the
          Flemish Community. In addition, all existing primary legal acts as well as the
          secondary fisheries legislation implemented by the former national Ministry have
          been adopted by the Flemish government.

          There is a very coherent administrative structure for practical fisheries policy
          enforcement and implementation, since all responsibilities in this field are gathered
          into a single authority, the Sea Fisheries Service. This authority exerts its
          responsibilities in collaboration with various other authorities, in particular the
          Belgium Navy, the Maritime Inspectorate service and the police, all of which are also
          entrusted in their own field with control power related to fisheries. In regard to
          inspection and surveillance at sea, the SFS co-operates very closely with the Navy.
          For aerial surveillance, flight planning of military aircrafts is made by the
          Environmental Department, taking into account the needs of SFS. The Maritime
          Inspectorate, under the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, is responsible for
          the certification of vessel characteristics.

          The control powers given to the fisheries inspectors of the SFS, and the other bodies
          involved with control, allow them to accomplish their duties effectively. On the field
          the inspectors have extended powers to operate completely independent. They
          possess a set of strong effective for collecting evidence and information. The means
          placed at the disposal of the SFS and the other authorities involved in fisheries
          monitoring, inspection and surveillance seem in general sufficient for the fulfilment
          of the obligations referred to in Article 1(2) of the said Regulation.

          Belgium has implemented measures for the management of the fishing fleet in
          accordance with MAGP IV rules: The level of accuracy of the national fishing fleet
          register as well as of the licences and permits issued has been satisfactory. However,
          the Commission cannot be convinced of the reliability of the contents of the fleet
          register in relation to engine power; since once the licence has been issued and the
          vessels characteristics registered in accordance with the Maritime Inspectorate
          information, the SFS, contrary to the Maritime Inspection service, does not have the



EN                                             18                                                   EN
     power, the technical knowledge or the means to verify if the characteristics have not
     been further modified illegally.

     The relation between the fishing possibilities available and the capacity of the fleet is
     estimated not to be wholly in equilibrium. In general, the effective use of the national
     quotas was explained to require perhaps less capacity, but certainly more fishing
     effort than available in some of the ICES areas. However, the fact that the quota
     allocated to Belgium exceeds significantly the annual landings carried out by the
     Belgium fishing fleet seems to confirm that Belgium has implemented an appropriate
     fishing effort and quota management by the means of the annual Quota Decision. In
     addition, Belgium has introduced relevant provisions to implement catch and effort
     registration in accordance with Community requirements.

     Despite a small number of inspectors, the monitoring strategy implemented by
     Belgium authorities, given the small number of harbours and vessels; consists of
     systematic landing control and monitoring supplemented by targeted sea and air
     surveillance. Furthermore there are administrative controls and crosschecks of log-
     books, landing declarations, sales notes, transport documents and VMS. As a result,
     the Belgian authorities report that 20 % of the landings in the three fish auctions are
     checked, and that the subsequent cross-checking and administrative control covers at
     least 75 % of landings. The level of controls focused on transport documentation has
     increased.

     Cross checks are made by the SFS between sales information, received
     electronically, and catches and landing declarations recorded on EC logsheets, by the
     means of Quovis database. However, there may be a degree of collusion between the
     auction authorities and the buyers on providing incorrect sales note information.
     Commission inspectors have observed the institutionally accepted practice of
     overfilling boxes on the Zeebrugge auction – on occasions up to 4%. Whilst the
     amounts may seem rather insignificant in small lots, the cumulative effect can in
     effect be substantial.

     The landing of undersized fish is no longer a substantive issue. The level of control
     applied at the point of discharge appears to be adequate. Landing of unrecorded
     catches (notably sole and other valuable) persist also for tax evasion purposes. The
     absence of prior notification and designated times for landings in the ports does not
     rule out the possibility that vessels indeed land fish unknown to the SFS. However,
     the extent of such practices remains unsubstantiated.

     The arrangements for co-operation with other Member States regarding landings of
     Belgian vessels in their ports are effective. However, the Commission remains
     concerned that the 20% tolerance in the EC logbook is fully exploited to declare
     catches, particularly when vessels land abroad. Whilst co-operation is deemed to be
     at a high level, there is perhaps an over reliance on the control authorities of other
     Member States to be constantly vigil. Notably, co-operation with the French
     authorities should be continued and strengthened. Therefore the control instruments
     available – EC logbooks, landing declarations, sales-notes, checks on the auction and
     transport documents – should be fully exploited for control purposes.

     The national FMC is fully operational. All vessels obliged to carry VMS on board
     have been equipped with it. Manual crosschecks between VMS data and the fishing



EN                                         19                                                    EN
     zones returns in the EC logbooks are made regularly but not systematically. The SFS
     has successfully used its legal instruments to support prosecutions in the courts for
     abuse of the VMS.

     In Belgium the minimum fine for infringements of the CFP is high, approximately €
     7,500. However, the imposed sanctions are often conditional on future behaviour,
     and only part of the fine awarded need to be paid unless there is a re-offence within
     three years. In addition to the fine, the illegal gain derived from the offence is
     forfeited. The system whereby the final fine includes the illegal gain from an offence
     is seen as a definite deterrent to offending behaviour. The inspection service is rather
     small and the channels of communication between inspectors and the prosecutor
     appear to work well. In Belgium, all prosecutions are treated and brought before the
     court by a specially assigned prosecutor, and the court in Brugge hears all fisheries
     cases. Rulings are therefore reasonably consistent and fines are on a uniform level.

     Although there is a legal framework for withdrawal of licenses and administrative
     fines, these possibilities are not fully exploited. The reason for this may be that it is
     considered that the judicial follow up in the court is effective enough. The recently
     introduced possibility to take legal action against the owner of a vessel, and not only
     the master, has not yet been used to any great extent. The active pursuit of this policy
     by the Belgian authorities has yet to be assessed.

     It seems that the problem of Belgian vessels using illegal attachments (blinders) on
     fishing gear persists. However, this is a matter for control at sea and the Belgian
     authorities have sought to combat this by co-ordinated exercises in conjunction with
     other Member States during joint control exercises, notably in the form of ‘Shark’
     operations. Given the limited number of times these operations have actually taken
     place it does however not seem a fully effective method of control on such activities.




EN                                         20                                                    EN
                                       DENMARK

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            The Danish fishing industry is characterised by traditional demersal fisheries
            undertaken in the North Sea waters and a large pelagic industry fishing for both
            industrial and human consumption purposes in the Baltic, Northern Atlantic and
            parts of ICES area VII. Whilst the fortunes of the demersal fleet have declined
            in the last 15 years, the pelagic catchers have remained a very strong force in
            respect of the existing EU fishing opportunities. The pelagic industry is
            particularly highly organised and motivated and contributes significantly to the
            economy in certain coastal areas.

            Denmark continues to sustain a large number of vessels connected with artisanal
            activity in its coastal fisheries.

     1.1.   Fleet

            The fishing industry in Denmark is extremely important to a number of
            geographical regions. The three most significant areas are the coastal
            municipalities of Northern Jutland, Western Jutland and the Island of Bornholm.
            These areas involved some 85% of all landings by vessels in 2001. The main
            trawler fleet is situated in the key ports of Jutland, but a considerable number of
            smaller vessels, particularly gill-netters, are distributed around the whole
            coastline.

            The principal fishing gears used by Danish fishermen are trawl and gill net, but
            the Danish seine is important particularly for vessels operating from the west
            and north coast of Jutland. The main pelagic fisheries for human consumption
            are conducted by a small fleet of purse-seiners situated in Hirtshals. Denmark
            has one factory vessel, which exclusively focuses on shrimp fisheries in NAFO
            and Greenland waters.

            An important aspect of the national fleet are the industrial fisheries for sprat,
            Norway pout, blue whiting, horse mackerel and sandeel, which have their main
            processing bases in the major ports of the north and west coast of Jutland.

            For the period 2000 to 2002 Danish fleet capacity (according to MAGP IV
            assessment) decreased from 4,145 vessels with a total of 372,088 kW and
            tonnage of 102,143 GT (ICT69) to 3,833 vessels with 345,775 kW and tonnage
            of 99,202 GT. This represents an overall decrease of 7.5% in the number of
            vessels, 3% for total tonnage and 7% for fleet engine power.

            In 2002 the largest segment in terms of the number of vessels was 4B1 (<12m
            small inshore vessels) which comprised 70% of the fleet. The polyvalent trawl
            and seiner fleet of 4B3 accounted for 24% of the vessels, netters of segment 4B2
            for 4% and the pelagic trawl and purse seiners of 4B4 a mere 0.3%. Ignoring the
            predominance by virtue of their sheer numbers of small vessels in 4B1, the



EN                                                21                                              EN
             important segments in terms of kW were categories 4B3 with 76% of the fleet’s
             engine power, the pelagic trawl/purser fleet of 4B4 with 9% and the vessels of
             4B2 accounting for 5%.

             Denmark implemented a series of decommissioning schemes throughout the
             reference period and particularly targeted the segments of 4B2 and 4B3,
             achieving a reduction of 11% in the number of vessels, a reduction of 9% in
             engine power and a 3% loss of tonnage.

     1.2.    Fishing opportunities

             Besides fishing opportunities available in EU waters, the Danish fleet also
             benefits from agreements concluded by the Commission with Third countries,
             namely with Norway, Greenland, Faeroes and some of the Baltic States. The
             fleets operate extensively in NEAFC Regions 1 and 2 and the Baltic. The
             Danish fleet has access to significant quantities of the available EU TAC’s for
             cod, nephrops, saithe, sole, plaice, lemon sole, sandeel, northern prawn, Norway
             pout, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, sprat and herring.

             In 2001 the initial global quota for the Danish fleet was 2,089,384 tonnes2, the
             most important commercial species being cod (55,249 tonnes), herring (191,940
             tonnes), mackerel (73,089 tonnes), horse mackerel (54,770 tonnes), blue whiting
             (63,570 tonnes), sprat (271,587 tonnes), sandeel (1,057,500 tonnes) and plaice
             (27,410 tonnes). On average the Danish fleet took in excess of 85% of the
             individual quotas allocated to them. These figures account for 82% of the total
             national TAC’s.

     1.3.    National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

             The authority with primary responsibility for the implementation of fisheries
             conservation and management policies is the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
             Fisheries (Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, hereafter the
             Ministry).

             The national Fisheries Act (fiskeriloven N° 281 of 12.5.1999) gives the Fisheries
             Directorate (Fiskeridirektoratet), as part of the Ministry, the power to take
             measures to regulate fishing for the resources available to Denmark. The main
             methods of managing the Danish fishing opportunities available is via licensing
             (and therefore quota uptake) and effort control.

             The management of quotas varies from stock to stock. Typically the procedure
             is to divide the year into periods and specify how much of the Danish quota may
             be caught during each period. Vessel size, type, method of capture and track
             record of catches over the last three years are then taken into account. In
             addition, there are limits on how much an individual vessel is allowed to catch
             during a specific time period – every two weeks, monthly, two months or for the
             whole year. From 2002 it was decided that herring and mackerel allocations could
             be made in the form of individual transferable quotas.

     2
            Figure excludes 100,232 pieces of salmon in ICES III b - d.



EN                                                       22                                      EN
              For targeted fisheries deemed to be ‘under pressure’ a restricted licence is
              applied. There are various types of licence categories which state the conditions
              for participation in specific fisheries in certain areas and for set time periods.
              The conditions attached to licences can be amended at very short notice, which
              ensures a great deal of flexibility for management action.

              Once the Danish quota for particular stock is exhausted, the Ministry will
              prohibit fishing for that stock. Notice of the closure is given over the coastal
              radio, sent by fax to the Danish Fishermen’s Association and publicised on the
              Internet. Where a licence specifies an individual vessel quota, the licence has to
              be returned to the Directorate once the quota is taken.

              The national Maritime Board keeps a fleet register for all vessels, containing
              data on basic characteristics, and is responsible for the accuracy of this
              information. The Fisheries Directorate keeps a register on fishing vessels
              containing data about all characteristics relevant to fisheries. For information
              about basic characteristics, the Fisheries Directorate cross checks with the data
              held by the Maritime Board. The Fisheries Directorate has on-line access to
              these data.

              Catch registration is a matter solely for the Fisheries Directorate, with all
              information being supplied to the central database in Copenhagen.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Danish sovereignty and jurisdiction

              The tasks of the Danish fisheries administration involve the surveillance of a
              7,314 km coastline and 100,000 km² of the Danish EEZ in the North Sea,
              Skagerrak, Kattegat and the Baltic Sea area. Danish waters fall exclusively
              within ICES areas III a,b,c and IVb. As detailed in 1.1 above there is a large
              fleet to be controlled – 3,833 vessels in 2002. Maritime control in the EEZ is
              exclusively the responsibility for the Fisheries Directorate.

              The Danish fishing industry has traditionally been located in the coastal areas of
              north and west Jutland and the island of Bornholm which receive the greater part
              of the landings. The main trawler fleets are situated in the key ports of Jutland,
              although a considerable number of smaller vessels can still be found in most
              ports.

              The Danish fleet is operational throughout the national EEZ with directed
              fisheries in certain waters. Demersal fishing is widespread whilst pelagic species
              are taken in traditional areas on a more seasonal basis. The large <12 metre fleet
              tends to operate on a more localised basis, the limiting factor being the time a
              vessel is able to remain at sea.

              Industrial fishing is undertaken mostly in the North Sea with vessels from
              MAGP IV segment B43 switching from targeting species for human
              consumption when the industrial fisheries are at their height. The industrial




EN                                                 23                                              EN
              fishery involves more than 300 vessels which target sandeel, sprat, Norway
              pout, blue whiting and horse mackerel.

              Other MS and Third country vessels operate throughout Danish waters, mainly
              Swedish, German, Dutch, UK, Norwegian and Faeroe vessels. In waters of
              ICES IIId there is also a presence of Polish and Baltic State vessels.

     1.4.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

              In addition to the waters of Norway and Poland, the national EEZ borders three
              other Member States – Germany, Sweden and the UK. Danish vessels are active
              in all these areas.

              The Danish high seas fisheries beyond the North Sea consist mainly of a small
              fleet of pelagic trawlers/purse seiners fishing for herring, mackerel, Norway
              pout, horse mackerel, pilchard and occasionally capelin. Important fisheries also
              exist in Norwegian waters and in Third country waters in the Baltic. Faroese
              waters are fished for mackerel and blue whiting. Denmark also has one factory
              vessel targeting Northern prawn in the NAFO regulatory area and in Greenland
              waters.

     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              There are 14 auction centres in Denmark which are situated in the major ports
              and most demersal catches are sold on these. All buyers of first sale fish in
              Denmark have to be authorised. However, there is no obligation for fishermen to
              sell fish through the auctions, the exception being for cod from the North Sea or
              Skagerrak as a result of national measures introduced connected to the ‘cod
              recovery plans’ in 2001.

              Important parts of the Danish fleet (approximately 300 vessels) are engaged in
              industrial fisheries for sandeel, sprat, Norway pout, blue whiting, horse
              mackerel and pilchard. The landings of industrial catches mainly take place in
              the ports of Esbjerg, Thyborøn, Hanstholm and Skagen. When vessels are
              operating away from the ports they transport catches to the processors by road.
              In 2002 the total volume of industrial landings was 1.34 million tonnes with a
              value of € 166 million. The industrial fisheries industry is very highly organised
              and, apart from the factory in Hanstholm, the main processors are co-operatives
              owned by the fishermen who therefore have a guaranteed sale for their catches.

              Landings of demersal species are carried out in all Danish ports, while pelagic
              landings mainly take place in the main ports of Jutland where large processing
              facilities exist. In 2002 the total volume of pelagic fish landed for human
              consumption (herring and mackerel) was approximately 164,000 tonnes with a
              value of € 71 million.

              Vessels from other Member States often land in Denmark, notably those from
              Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and the UK. In regard to
              Third countries, landings from Norwegian, Polish, Baltic State and Faeroese
              vessels are frequently made.



EN                                                 24                                              EN
               Because of the inability of the domestic fleet to meet the national demand of
               Danish processors, there is a great reliance on imports to sustain the industry. In
               2001 some 390,000 tonnes of fishery products (fresh, frozen, ready processed
               and meal and oil) valued at € 308 million were imported from other EU
               countries – mostly from Sweden, Germany and the UK. Additionally, another
               796,000 tonnes valued at € 1,196 million were sourced from Third countries –
               importantly from Norway and the Faeroe Islands.

               Danish vessels frequently land in foreign ports, especially if they are close to the
               fishing grounds or if a better price can be found on the auctions. These landings
               mostly take place in Norway, Sweden, the Faeroe Islands, Scotland and the
               Netherlands.

     1.4.4.    Marketing, processing and transport

               The core of the fish processing industry in Denmark is mainly concentrated in
               the coastal areas of north and west Jutland. It is a very prominent industry,
               which has been able to maintain its levels of production and capacity despite a
               great dependence on fish transported from other Member States and fish
               imported from Third countries. There are approximately 4493 large companies
               involved with processing fisheries products. In addition to providing for the
               national demand, the processing industry contributes significantly to the
               distribution of fisheries products to neighbouring Member States’ and EU
               exports world-wide.

               There are 14 main auctions and historically the large processors are situated in
               close proximity to these. As mentioned in 1.4.3. above, a considerable number
               of landings by Danish vessels takes place abroad. There is no national
               requirement (except for cod from the North Sea and Kattegat since 2001) for
               fish to be sold through auction, but in fact most demersal fish is sold this way.
               Pelagic fish for human consumption is usually sold and delivered directly to the
               processors, the exception being the seasonal ‘matje’ herring from the North Sea
               and Kattegat which because of its high premium is normally auctioned.

               Industrial catches are landed directly to the processing factories which, as
               explained in 1.4.3. above, are co-operatives largely owned by the fishermen
               themselves. The industrial fisheries sector contributes significantly to the Danish
               balance of trade which in 1999 was worth € 215 million in exports and € 94
               million in imports4.

               The Fisheries Directorate and its inspection services are responsible for
               monitoring compliance with Community marketing regulations, including the
               controls of fish and fish products landed by fishing vessels, factory ships and
               freighters registered in a Third country. They also verify and deal with payments
               concerning intervention aid.



     3
              Figures from a DG Fish report on principal firms in the fisheries and aquaculture products
              industry 2001.
     4
              Note on Danish industrial Fisheries to the General Secretary of the Council dated October 2001.



EN                                                        25                                                    EN
            Checks according to the Hygiene Directive and the control of import and export
            requirements are exercised in co-operation with the Danish Veterinary and Food
            Administration, which is also a part of the Ministry. This is a part of the general
            strategy of the Ministry within their aim of establishing a unified control system.

            In Denmark there are 3 recognised Producers Organisations (PO’s). One is
            involved solely with the pelagic fisheries of the purse seiner fleet and the other
            two concern themselves with the general activity of their members. The Danish
            Fishermen’s Producer Organisation, which is the largest of the PO’s, has
            approximately 2,100 vessels in its organisation, which represents about 70% of
            the national fishing capacity.

            The POs have no direct role in quota management, although they have an active
            participation on the Advisory Committee for Professional Fisheries (Udvalget
            for Erhvervsfiskeri). This body was established under national fisheries
            legislation to advise the Ministry when it plans and prepares rules governing the
            activity of the fleet. This involves such issues as regulating quota uptake and
            technical matters in regard to gear, by-catches etc. The committee consists of
            representatives from the most important catcher and buyer organisations and
            associations. This level of co-operation between the central authority and the
            industry has a very important role in the transparency of fisheries policy in
            Denmark.

            There is a well established transport infrastructure for the movement of fishery
            products in Denmark. Vessels often consign fish from more remote ports, or
            from ports with smaller markets, to the larger auction centres to take advantage
            of the better prices that buyers will pay. As detailed above, a lot of fish,
            especially that from pelagic landings, is delivered directly to the processors as is
            imported fish. Given the quantity of transported fish, the verification of transport
            documentation is an important area for control activity. In Denmark the
            competent authority designated to make these checks is the inspection service of
            the Fisheries Directorate. If a lorry is to be checked whilst in transit, the
            assistance of the national police service is required.


     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The Danish national legislative framework concerning fisheries activity was
            revised in 1999. The Fisheries Act (fiskeriloven N° 281) entered into force in
            May 1999 and unified the contents of all previous laws. Apart from laws and
            their amendments, general decisions of the competent administrative authorities
            are introduced by the State as secondary legislation in the form of Regulations –
            bekendtgørelse (BEK).

            The central authority responsible for co-ordinating and developing fisheries
            policy is Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri – the Ministry. In the
            larger administrative sense, the field of competence of the Ministry covers all
            aspects of fisheries administration and the core of the Ministry is formed of



EN                                                26                                               EN
            Departementet. The division of competencies between the Ministry and the
            Fisheries Directorate has been regulated in the Regulations of the Ministry. The
            Regulation presently in force concerning the powers and competencies of the
            Directorate is BEK N° 225 of 3.4.2000 (om Fiskeridirektoratets opgaver og
            beføjelser), which is based on Article 110(2) of the Fisheries Act.

            The Fisheries Directorate (Fiskeridirektoratet) deals exclusively with fishery
            matters and has therefore been granted its own decision and legislative powers.
            It is also treated separately in a budgetary context. The Fisheries Directorate is
            designated the ‘lead’ organisation for general matters of control, management of
            the fleet register, licensing, management of quota and catch registration.

            The organisation of the Fisheries Directorate consists of a central unit divided in
            three divisions, three regional inspectorates and four fishery inspection vessels.
            All inspection activities are co-ordinated by the operational section of the
            Fishery Office in the Fisheries Directorate.

            In respect of structural control, the national fishing vessel register is the source
            of data used to determine fleet characteristics. The national Maritime Board
            keeps the main vessel register while the Fisheries Directorate keeps a register on
            fishing vessels with information relevant for fisheries. For licensing and fleet
            structure purposes the Fisheries Directorate uses the data in its register and cross
            checks with the information contained in the main fleet register kept by the
            Maritime Board.

            Catch registration is a matter solely for the Fisheries Directorate with all the
            necessary information being supplied to the central database in Copenhagen.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            The powers of the inspectors of the Fisheries Directorate are laid down in the
            Fisheries Act of 1999. According to Article 117 of the Act, inspectors are
            empowered to access all premises where fisheries related business is undertaken
            and are permitted to board fishing vessels. They can take samples of fish and
            demand to see and seize, where appropriate, documentation for investigative and
            control purposes.

            The Fisheries Directorate does have the power to undertake administrative
            controls on the records of buyers and processors. However, if there is a
            suspicion of an offence the police have to be included in the investigation.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The system in place in Denmark for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is one
            predominantly based on criminal procedure, although administrative sanctions
            are in use as well, particularly as regards industrial fishing and logbook
            offences. Monitoring and control is carried out by the Directorate for fisheries.
            Infringements are reported to the police, prosecution is initiated and the matter is
            decided by a court of first instance. The most important of the administrative
            sanctions is the possibility to withdraw licenses for a defined period of time. For



EN                                                27                                               EN
     some infractions, such as logbook infringements, there is also a limited
     possibility to use administrative fines.

     The regional offices of the Fisheries Directorate undertake investigations and
     compile evidence against potential offenders. If it is deemed a serious enough
     offence this evidence will be subsequently submitted to the police for further
     action and then referred directly to the public prosecutor (anklagemyndigheden).
     The powers of the fisheries inspectors as regards the investigation of
     infringements are strictly limited, and the police is therefore of central
     importance in the system for follow-up. In addition to being the investigating
     authority, the head of the local police authority is also the public prosecutor. For
     smaller offences (minor EC logbook infringements, failure to provide sufficient
     ice for fresh fish etc) the regional offices have limited independent powers for
     administrative sanctioning.

     There is an element of autonomy at the regional level with the local inspection
     service deciding whether there should be follow-up to an offence detected.
     Regional inspectorates can forward infringement cases to prosecutors without
     authorisation from the Fisheries Directorates headquarters in Copenhagen,
     although advice may be sought in cases of some complexity. The Directorate
     has issued guidelines for dealing with fisheries offences and provide the
     prosecution authority with the suggested appropriate penalties (the level of fines
     etc.) to be proposed to the court.

     Aboard fishery patrol vessels (FPV’s) the designated fishery inspectors have the
     full range of powers available to shore based staff. When an infringement is
     detected aboard a Danish vessel then they will perform an investigation on the
     spot and collect the necessary evidence and immediately report the details and
     submit evidence to the police service who will conduct the prosecution ashore.
     If a foreign vessel is found to be committing a serious enough infringement then
     it may be detained to port by the FPV and again it will become a matter of
     prosecution by the local police.

     The central provision in the Fisheries Act defining what constitutes an
     infringement is Article 130. For instance, it enumerates a number of substantive
     provisions in the Act, the infringement of which is sanctioned with fines. It also
     provides that transgression of rules adopted on the basis of Article 10 or
     decisions and regulations mentioned in that provision (i.e. a direct reference to
     EC rules) is sanctioned with a fine. Furthermore it states that it constitutes an
     infringement to provide false or misleading information, or to withhold
     information required by the Act, by rules adopted on the basis of the Act or EC
     legislation. Failure to submit documentation or other information also
     constitutes an infringement.

     The fisheries rules are based on culpa, i.e. it is enough to show negligence on
     the part of the offender. Furthermore, not only a consummated infringement is
     penalised, since the Act states that in most cases also an attempt to commit an
     infringement is punishable. In the majority of cases, the liable party is an
     individual. For infringements committed in the course of a fisheries related
     activity, it is thus the master of the fishing vessel who is liable. Only in rare



EN                                         28                                               EN
     cases can for example the company owning the ship be held liable. Article 130
     provides however that also companies or other legal persons may be held
     responsible, in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Penal Code
     (Chapter 5). This could be applied for instance in the case of buyers.

     The local head of the police, acting in his capacity as prosecutor, may compound
     the infraction, i.e. directly issue an order for payment of a fine and in return not
     bring the matter to prosecution. This presupposes that the offender agrees to this
     and that the amount of the fine follows what is court practice in the area.
     Therefore, there is no “discount” as the level of the fine will be the same as if
     decided by a court. This order to pay has the same legal effects as a judgement
     and it will be registered. Compounding seems to be fairly common, and it is
     favoured by the police as it means quick justice.

     Cases are generally finalised after prosecution at local court level (byret). There
     is the right to appeal but appeals appear to be rather rare. It has been recognised
     that disparities might exist over the interpretations of the different local courts,
     although they are generally inclined to act in a fast and efficient manner.
     Penalties can be substantial, and fines are normally calculated as a percentage of
     the value of the illegal fish (and the value of the illegal fish is confiscated). On
     top of that the gear used illegally can be confiscated (either physically or to its
     value). There are no fine levels fixed in the legislation, and the setting of the fine
     is the exclusive competence of the court. However, standardised methods for
     calculating the fines have evolved through case law.

     The fines are calculated as 1/10, 1/4 or1/3 of the value of what has been fished
     illegally, and if there are several infractions the amounts are added up. The fine
     should be set at 1/3 of the value if the master is also the owner or part owner of
     the vessel, 1/4 if he is not. The coefficient 1/10 will be used if the offender
     denounces or declares the infringement himself. In addition to this, minimum
     fines are used, when the above method would lead to a level that is considered
     too low or when the existence of an illegal catch cannot be established, e.g. for
     late submission of logbooks or landing declarations. There are no maximum
     fines.

     For several types of infringements, notably failure to comply with technical
     conservation measures such as minimum percentage of target species, by-catch
     rules, closed areas etc., administrative sanctions are applied. The most common
     of these is the withdrawal of a fishing licence (permit to fish one or more
     species). However, this particular form of sanction can only be applied by the
     Fisheries Directorate and therefore has to be referred to Copenhagen. Licences
     are usually withdrawn for a period of one month, and the withdrawal usually
     takes effect within a few days of the infringement being detected.

     There is a system of written warnings in place, these are issued at the discretion
     of the regional inspection service. However, the use of such written warnings is
     not common.




EN                                          29                                                EN
     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            In the period 2000 to 2002 the total costs of control of fisheries by the Fisheries
            Directorate amounted to approximately € 59.73 million (19.24 in 2000, 20.57 in
            2001 and 19.92 in 2002). A large part of the budget is used for sea control, with
            € 5.41 million in 2000, 5.05 in 2001 and down to 4.90 in 2002. Other
            expenditure directly related to control relates to landing controls (€ 3.36 million
            in 2002), hygiene control (€ 0.56 million in 2002) and freshwater/inshore
            controls (€ 1.59 million in 2002).

     3.2.   Human resources

            In 2001 the Fisheries Directorate employed 289 people of all grades. There are
            approximately 175 designated inspectors, who are based in the Copenhagen HQ,
            the Regional offices and aboard the FPV’s.

            Inspectors within the Fisheries Directorate are expected to possess higher
            educational qualifications, although a background in fisheries is not considered a
            pre-requisite for recruitment. On entry to the service an intensive training period
            of approximately two and a half years is undertaken, at the end of which
            probationary inspectors are expected to have achieved an acceptable knowledge
            of fisheries and control issues.

     3.3.   Other resources

            In 2002 the Fisheries Directorate operated four FPV’s, all of which are capable
            of operating throughout the national EEZ. In addition to fisheries surveillance
            these vessels also have an identified role in rescue and towage. However, in
            2001 94% of their time at sea was solely concerned with fisheries control. In
            collaboration with the Commission and other contracting parties the Fisheries
            Directorate provided one of the offshore FPV’s for patrol in the NEAFC area
            and in 2002 there was an obligation to IBSFC to provide a vessel in the Baltic
            Sea and the Belts.

            Each of the Regional Inspectorate office has at least one small patrol boat
            available to undertake controls in inshore and inland waters.

            There is no programme of aerial surveillance by the Fisheries Directorate, but it
            utilises aircraft from the UK and Swedish authorities to patrol the Danish EEZ
            in the ‘cod recovery areas’ of the North Sea and Baltic.




EN                                                30                                              EN
     3.4.   Financial aid program

            In the reference period the Fisheries Directorate applied for a financial
            contribution from the Commission in accordance with the relevant Council
            Decisions. The Commissions financial contribution was as follows:

                           2000                   2001                   2002

                      € 5.72 million         € 0.255 million         € 1.76 million

            Aid was requested for several purposes – notably to build a new offshore FPV,
            for development of VMS, general IT upgrades and the development of the new
            EC logbook.

            The use of apportioned funds was overseen by the Fisheries Directorate’s
            financial administration and was subject to verification by the Danish National
            Audit Office.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            Within the Fisheries Directorate’s headquarters all computers are linked together
            within a local area network, and there is access to all databases required for
            control purposes – VMS, licensing, catch registration etc. These databases are
            stored on a mainframe, which constitutes the common platform for the
            Fiskeridirektoratet. The regional offices of the inspection service are all
            connected to the central system.

            On the central mainframe various databases exist for EC logbook, landing
            declaration and sales-note information. Additionally, all information concerning
            the national catch sampling scheme, with general observations, can also be
            accessed. The national fleet register is linked to the database concerned with
            licensing details of individual vessels. Data can be accessed from PC’s, in all
            fisheries offices.

            The information from EC logbooks and landing declarations (the latter are only
            received from foreign vessels) is electronically entered into the system in the
            local offices. Sales-note data is mainly sent electronically direct from the
            auction/buyers and entered into the system automatically. The Fisheries
            Directorate then runs a daily validation which automatically compares the EC
            logbook information with sales-note details. Any discrepancies are highlighted
            and subsequently checked in the port offices.

            A paper check is carried out once a month in the Regional offices to ensure that
            the vessels are complying with quota regulations and to calculate ‘days at sea’.

            The Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) is situated within the
            Fiskeridirektoratet in Copenhagen and receives and forwards all satellite
            information connected with the activities of Danish and foreign vessels.


EN                                               31                                             EN
     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Danish authorities have
            established a satellite based vessel monitoring system (VMS) to monitor the
            positions of Community vessels. A legal framework has been introduced to
            enable these provisions to be adequately enforced. In total 184 Danish vessels
            are required to transmit position reports (2002). The national authorities have a
            control methodology in place to monitor vessels with VMS derogation

            VMS data is routinely cross checked against information entered in the EC
            logbooks and is accessible onboard certain FPV’s.

            Remote access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing
            the data recorded by the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) is provided.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Danish sovereignty or jurisdiction

            Danish waters (exclusively within ICES areas III a,b,c and IVb – approximately
            100,000 km²) are fished intensively by vessels from Denmark, other Member
            States and occasionally vessels from Third countries. Maritime control in the
            EEZ is exclusively the responsibility for the Fisheries Directorate. There is a
            high level of collaboration between the various parts of the control service
            involved in surveillance both at sea and ashore. The Danish FPV’s concentrate
            their efforts on those areas where fishing activity is expected to be most
            concentrated or where there is a distinct possibility that there is non-compliance
            with the rules in force.

            During the period 2000 - 2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general
            EEZ, the national 12 and 6 mile limits and Baltic Belts in regard to access and
            technical measures. Enforcement in the designated ‘conservation areas’ for cod
            in the North Sea and Baltic areas was also a high priority. The control of
            freshwater, recreational and inshore fisheries is also identified as a priority area.

            In the period 2000 - 2002 some 3,550 days were spent at sea by the FPV’s of the
            Fisheries Directorate and a total of 2,771 vessels were inspected. These figures
            exclude however the numerous checks which were made on the small scale
            inshore, recreational and freshwater fisheries.

            Controls undertaken at sea include the physical boarding of fishing vessels, with
            a check made of all the ship's papers, EC logbooks and fishing gear, as well as
            catch composition compliance with fish quality regulations. In addition to
            inspections at sea, inspectors aboard the FPV’s will also conduct landing
            controls when the patrol vessel is in port – these amounted to an additional 944
            inspections in the reference period.

            There was no programme of aerial surveillance operated by the Fisheries
            Directorate during the reference period.



EN                                                 32                                               EN
     5.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

            In collaboration with the Commission and other contracting parties the Fisheries
            Directorate provided one of the offshore FPV’s for patrol in the NEAFC area
            and in 2002 there was an obligation to the IBSFC to provide patrol vessels in the
            Baltic Sea and the Belts.

            In regard to NEAFC the Fisheries Directorate provided a FPV for approximately
            69 patrol days in the three year period.

            When operating outside the national EEZ all VMS information from Danish
            vessels is forwarded from the Fisheries Directorate to the relevant coastal States
            and the Commission.

     5.3.   Landings

            In 2001 the Fisheries Directorate employed approximately 100 inspectors in the
            ports and, as explained above, inspectors on FPV’s also undertook inspections in
            the ports. The task of landing controls constitutes a large part of the Fisheries
            Directorate’s activities. Control is based on physical and administrative checks
            on discharges in both the industrial and human consumption fisheries.

            The Danish authorities have accepted that there is a problem with fishermen
            making ‘black’ (not declaring), ‘grey’ (misreporting species) and ‘drawer’
            (misreporting quantities) landings. The Fisheries Directorate therefore biases
            inspection activity to target these practices, especially for landings of cod and in
            the pelagic fishery for high valued species such as herring and mackerel. The
            landing of sprat for industrial purposes which may contain a high percentage of
            herring as a by-catch is also a priority for control.

            In the reference period there were a total of 524,865 landings (discharging
            approximately 4.85 million tonnes) by Danish and foreign vessels in the ports.
            Of these some 23,830 landings (equating to 3.75 million tonnes) were solely
            industrial discharges. The Fisheries Directorate sets annual targets for controls
            in the ports which are on average 10% of all landings for human consumption
            and 1 monitor per 1000 tonnes for industrial catches. These targets are usually
            achieved.

            As a result of Community requirements, a special control system is applied to
            catches from the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat with the aim of calculating
            by-catches. This system utilises a computerised monitoring programme where
            vessels are selected for control on a random basis. Vessels engaged in small-
            meshed fisheries are required by national legislation to give prior notice of
            landing and are selected automatically for monitoring and catch sampling. The
            monitoring schemes objective is to ensure that one sample is taken per 1,000
            tonnes of industrial fish. In 2001, a total of 1,090 samples were taken under the
            industrial monitoring system. In addition to the computer generated sampling
            system, the Danish inspection service also undertook 692 samples on industrial
            landings when they suspected that permitted by-catches were being exceeded.




EN                                                33                                               EN
            In 2001 the inspection service carried out 3,716 controls on landings for human
            consumption which equated to a 13% check of all landings.

            Besides monitoring the catches discharged, landing controls include a check of
            all ship's papers, EC logbook, fishing gear, catch composition, storage of the
            catch aboard and the quality of fish finally discharged.

            In addition to physical checks on the quayside the Fisheries Directorate’s
            landing control system works utilised computerised cross checks of the
            information from EC logbooks and auction/buyers sales-notes. The masters of
            Danish vessels do not normally provide a landing declaration when landing in
            home ports but are required to enter details of the buyer on the EC logsheet.
            However, foreign vessels landing in Denmark have to present an EC landing
            declaration.

            Danish vessels landing and selling fish outside Denmark are required to submit
            all control documentation within 48 hours of landing.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            In accordance with national law all buyers in Denmark have to be authorised.
            Although there is no obligation to sell fish through the auction system (the
            exception being for cod from the North Sea or Skagerrak) most demersal
            catches are sold this way. Following an agreement with the Food Directorate in
            2000, the Fisheries Directorate is recognised as the lead organisation in regard to
            verification that fisheries products are sold in accordance with EC guidelines.

            The Danish inspection services undertake controls on the sale of fish in two
            aspects:

            •     for the verification of compliance with EC Regulations in regard to the
                  declaration of catches and the general marketing of fishery products.

            •     verification that fishery products are stored aboard vessels and sold in
                  accordance with national fish quality standards.

            Whilst these two objectives may have different verification criteria there is a
            shared control methodology applicable. Therefore, controls are applied at
            various stages of the landing – from aboard the vessel before discharge through
            to the actual display and sale of the catch on the auction floor. Quality checks
            are made on hygienic conditions on the vessel (cleanliness of boxes, fish hold
            etc), the weight of boxes, the sorting and classification of species and the
            temperature of the fish finally displayed for sale. The Fisheries Directorate
            levies charges on the industry for making quality checks.

            The Fisheries Directorate gives a high priority to such checks and sets an annual
            target that 10% of landings should be controlled. In 2000 and 2001 a total of
            15,608 inspections were made of landings under the general title of ‘hygiene
            control’.




EN                                                34                                              EN
            Given the quantities of transported fish the verification of transport
            documentation is an important area for control activity. In Denmark the
            inspection service of the Fisheries Directorate is the competent authority for
            making such checks. However, the Fisheries Directorate has not provided
            figures concerning the number of checks on transport documentation.

            In the reference period Denmark reported 21 serious infringements concerning
            the storage, processing sale and transport of fisheries products.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports for 2000 to 2002 as submitted to the
            Commission, surveillance and inspection activities were carried out by the
            competent authorities of the Fisheries Directorate as outlined in section 2.1.
            above.

            During the reference period the Danish authorities have reported that 3,550 days
            were spent on maritime surface patrol – 1,201 in 2000, 1,186 in 2001 and 1,163
            in 2002 – and that a total of 2,753 boardings were made. There was no aerial
            support for these patrols by the FPVs.

            The relevant shore controls are divided into inspections on industrial landings,
            inspections of landings for human consumption and hygiene controls. Controls
            on landings for human consumption have decreased somewhat during the period
            in question – from 5,046 in 2000 to 3,716 in 2001 and 3,439 in 2002. The
            number of controls of industrial landings is fairly stable, with approximately
            1,700 controls a year.

            Additionally a large number of controls were made in the recreational fisheries
            and artisanal fisheries in inshore waters.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Council Regulations the Danish authorities reported 1,015
            serious infringements in the reference period of 2000 – 2002 (192 in 2000, 381
            in 2001 and 442 in 2002). These involved 15 different infringement types. In
            conformity with Danish legislation, sanctions may be imposed in the form of
            fines, licence removal and the confiscation of illegal catches or illegally used
            fishing gear.

            For 2001 Denmark reported the detection of 381 serious infringements, of which
            falsifying or failing to record data in logbooks etc. (E1) was the most common
            category (202 infringements). Administrative procedures were initiated in 241
            cases and criminal procedure in 123. Penalties were imposed in 276 cases, and
            the average fine was € 369 (figure based on 94 cases). Licences were withdrawn
            in 91 cases.

            In 2002 Denmark reported the detection of 442 serious infringements, 415
            concerning vessels flying the Danish flag or involving Danish fishermen, 26
            concerning vessels flying the flag of other MS or involving other MS nationals
            and 1 from a Third country vessel. These offences involved 15 types of illegal


EN                                              35                                             EN
            activity. The two main types of infringement were the falsification of data
            required in control documents (E1), 183 cases, and the use or holding on board
            of prohibited gear (D1), 95 cases. Some 339 infringements were discovered
            ashore.

            Administrative proceedings were initiated in 215 cases, criminal proceedings in
            128 cases and joint administrative and criminal proceedings in 59 cases.
            Penalties were imposed in 319 cases. The average fine was € 622 (figure based
            on 122 cases) and ranged from € 3,354 for unauthorised fishing (D5) to € 393
            for the falsification of data required in control documents (E1). In addition,
            Denmark ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 34 cases and a licence
            withdrawal in 111 cases, mostly for the use or holding aboard of prohibited gear
            (D1), 82 cases.

            When licences are withdrawn under the administrative procedure, there is an
            average delay of two or three days from the detection of the offence to the actual
            suspension of the licence. Where the licence holder opts for a court trial, the
            procedure can be more drawn out and it may take up to two years before the
            case is finally heard. However, the decision to withdraw the licence is enforced
            in the meantime.


     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

            Denmark has developed a sophisticated system of co-ordination and co-
            operation in seeking its primary objective of supporting the objectives of the
            CFP.

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            The Fishery Directorates collaborates with the Danish Institute for Fisheries
            Research, the Veterinary and Food Administration and in cases of structural
            funding for fleet management the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri-
            Business.

            Control at sea requires close co-operation between the operational section within
            the Fisheries Directorate headquarters in Copenhagen and the patrol vessels. In
            addition, co-operation between patrol vessels and the three regional
            inspectorates is based on both formalised and informal agreements.

            In addition to the contacts within the Ministry, control officials often work in
            close co-operation with the Danish police and with the prosecuting authorities.
            There is also liaison with the Central Customs and Tax Administration in
            connection with the investigation of illegal activities where financial fraud is
            involved.

            The Directorate produces primary statistics for use by the Danish Statistical
            Agency (Danmarks Statistik).

            In relation to co-operation with the industry the main forum for debate is with
            the Advisory Committee for Professional Fisheries. This official body provides


EN                                               36                                              EN
            an interface between the national authorities and all aspects of the industry from
            the catchers to the processors and has a very important role in the transparency
            of fisheries policy in Denmark.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            As part of its ongoing activity the Fishery Directorate co-operates with the
            control authorities in a number of countries – notably Norway, Sweden, the UK,
            the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. In addition there is participation with
            other Baltic countries in respect of the IBSFC and special control measures for
            landings and surveillance introduced in the Baltic Sea and the Belts. Denmark
            has also entered into a formal agreement with the Faeroe Islands on fisheries
            control.

            Denmark participates in an exchange of inspectors with the Netherlands and
            Germany. Inspectors from the UK and Lithuania have also been invited to
            Denmark to observe controls in the ports.

            Denmark has established protocols on the provision of VMS data for its vessels
            when they operate in other MS waters. Upon specific request the Fisheries
            Directorate supplies data concerning the activities of Danish vessels in
            Norwegian waters. Entry and exit information is also provided to the Faeroese
            and Greenland authorities.

            In respect to statistical data concerning fisheries Denmark provides information
            to EUROSTAT, ICES and the FAO.

            In collaboration with the Commission and other MS’s Denmark provides a FPV
            for control in the NEAFC area. Despite only limited activity by Danish vessels
            in NAFO fisheries, the Directorate participates in meetings of the Standing
            Committee on International Control (STACTIC).


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            Denmark has implemented a control system in accordance with the requirements
            of the Control Regulation. The Ministry and the Fisheries Directorate are
            responsible for all aspects of fisheries monitoring, inspection and surveillance
            activities. As a whole, the Danish control system appears to adequately ensure a
            high level of compliance by its fishing industry with the provisions of the CFP.
            The means placed at the disposal of the Fisheries Directorate for the
            implementation of Community requirements appear adequate, which applies
            particularly to the resources employed on land and in the Danish EEZ.

            However, the Fisheries Directorate has voiced particular concerns that national
            budgetary cuts and restrictions applied in the period 2000 – 2003 may have
            implications for the effectiveness of monitoring, inspection and surveillance for
            the future. The Commission will follow this development with particular
            interest.




EN                                                37                                             EN
     Denmark applies a strict control regime concerning industrial fisheries which
     use small-meshed gear. With a number of other fisheries, (with the exception of
     cod from the North Sea and the Skagerrak) Danish vessels are relatively free to
     choose landing places and the hours during which catches can be discharged.
     Therefore, inspection and surveillance activity cannot be guaranteed to cover all
     landings.

     The Fisheries Directorate has a system of electronic and manual verification of
     control documentation - EC logbooks and sales-notes. However, the
     Commission cannot exclude the possibility that widespread misreporting of
     catches has been undertaken in collusion with the buyers. The Danish authorities
     have carried out administrative enquiries on sales records in order to investigate
     such cases. The authorities have themselves admitted that a problem of quota
     evasion in the form of ‘black’, ‘grey’ and ‘drawer’ landings exists. The Fisheries
     Directorate reported that 4 major investigations were undertaken in 2001. The
     Commission has no details on the outcome of these procedures.

     The Danish catch registration system displays an over-reliance on the reliability
     of sales-note information provided by buyers and processors. These sales data
     are provided electronically and are fed directly into the catch registration
     system. EC inspectors have observed what appears to be a degree of collusion
     between buyers and the catchers on sales-note information, which is indicative
     of a larger problem. This has been observed in landings of cod in Bornholm and
     for herring and mackerel in the ports of northern Jutland.

     In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Danish authorities have
     established an effective satellite based monitoring system to monitor the
     positions of Danish and Community vessels. A legal framework has been
     introduced to enable these provisions to be adequately enforced, and there is
     methodical verification of VMS data against other control documentation.

     Denmark has implemented measures to control the development of the structure
     of the fleet and the activities of vessels are monitored in relation to their MAGP
     IV segmentation. However, the accuracy of the national fleet register in regard
     to segmentation is not absolutely assured. The Commission remains
     unconvinced of the reliability of the contents of the fleet register in relation to
     engine power, where the recorded information is not fully supported by physical
     inspections.

     The Danish authorities have a good working relationship with the industry and
     there seems to be a high level of compliance in many important issues of
     control. It is a clear objective of the Ministry that fisheries control policy is seen
     as transparent. The powers of the Fisheries Directorate in the area of licensing
     and sanctioning contribute to maintaining discipline regarding compliance with
     conservation measures. The follow-up and sanctioning competencies entrusted
     to the Directorate are generally utilised in an active manner and it is thought that
     the sanctioning regime contributes significantly to compliance by the industry.
     The Danish system for follow-up of infringements offers flexible solutions and
     shows a will to adapt to new developments. The extensive use of guidelines




EN                                          38                                                EN
     provides transparency and should contribute to ensuring a uniform application
     of the rules by everybody involved.

     Withdrawal of licences has reached a high level of acceptance by the industry
     and seems to be a very efficient and flexible tool. However, its use is confined to
     the licences issued for industrial fisheries, which has to be taken into account
     when assessing its efficiency and deterrent value.




EN                                         39                                              EN
                                        FINLAND

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            The Finnish fishing industry has several special characteristics with small-scale
            coastal fishing predominating. The ports and the landing places are small but
            numerous, but apart from the ports where there is particular activity for sprat
            and herring the quantities landed are small. A major determining factor on the
            level of activity is the winter climate (between October and April) when ice
            conditions are difficult.

            All these factors have a fundamental effect not only on the level and type of
            fishing activity but also on the requirements for monitoring and control of
            fishing in respect of the CFP in Finland. These circumstances, added to the fact
            that a large proportion of Finns are involved in recreational fisheries (around 2
            million of the total population of 5.2 million) are important considerations for
            the national authorities.

            It should be noted in the context of this Working Paper that the Provincial
            Government of the Åland Islands has full autonomy in respect of fishing control
            within its own territorial waters. The authorities of mainland Finland do not
            have jurisdiction in these waters. The data provided by Finland in their Annual
            Reports to the Commission has included that supplied by the Provisional
            Government.

            Finnish vessels operate exclusively in the Baltic and most fish exclusively
            within the national EEZ. Catches of cod and to a lesser extent salmon, are
            landed in Swedish and Danish ports. The vast majority of other landings are
            made in Finnish ports.

     1.1.   Fleet

            In ICES III the Finnish demersal fleet prosecutes only a limited number of
            fisheries, cod being the most important species. The larger (24 metre) demersal
            vessels target cod and almost exclusively land in Swedish and Danish ports
            (notably on Bornholm). There are several indigenous fisheries by trap and
            gillnets for other species such as pikeperch, whitefish, perch and pike, not
            subject to Commission restrictions.

            The Finnish pelagic fleet predominantly targets sprat and herring, and most
            activity is based in the ports on the south and the western coast as far north as
            63° North. Some landings are made in ports in Estonia (notably Tallin) and also
            limited amounts are transhipped to Russian factory ships in Finnish harbours.

            Salmon is fished in a number of ways: traps, gill net and drift nets in shallow
            coastal waters, the most important area being the western length of the coastline.
            Salmon is also taken in Swedish, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian waters.




EN                                               40                                              EN
            According to the main Commission decision 98/130/EC concerning the Finnish
            objectives for MAGP IV, the Finnish fleet has been divided into four segments;
            pelagic trawlers (4L2), demersal trawlers (4L3), vessels fishing with passive
            gears such as gillnets and longlines (4L4) and small coastal vessels less than 12
            metres in length fishing mainly with traps (4L1).

            The Finnish authorities accept that an over-capacity of the salmon fishing
            segment exists. To meet the MAGP IV goals the authorities reduced the fishing
            possibilities for catching salmon by imposing restrictions on fishermen who had
            not been active for a period longer than one year. Those that could not provide a
            satisfactory reason for their passivity were removed from the lists of
            professional fishermen and were thereafter not permitted to use salmon traps in
            state-owned waters.

            For the period 2000 to 2002 the Finnish fleet’s capacity (according to MAGP IV
            assessment) changed from 3,662 vessels with a total of 197,543 kW and tonnage
            of 20,660 GT to 3,571 vessels with 189,994 kW and tonnage of 19,712 GT. This
            represents an overall decrease of 2.5% in the number of vessels, a 4.6% decrease
            in total tonnage and a 3.9% decrease in fleet engine power. The general decrease
            in the fleet can be largely attributed to natural wastage in the fleet rather than the
            result of structural measures.

            In 2002 the largest segment in terms of the number of vessels was 4L1 (<12
            metre coastal vessels) which comprised 93.5% of the fleet, the pelagic and
            demersal fleets of 4L2 and 4L3 accounted for 4.8% of the vessels and the small
            vessels using passive gear to target salmon and other demersal species a mere
            1.6%.

            Ignoring the predominance by virtue of their sheer numbers of small vessels in
            4L1, by far the most important segment is category 4L2 (pelagic trawlers) which
            contains 25% of the fleets engine power and 47% of the tonnage. The pelagic
            trawlers of the Finnish fleet are by far the largest catchers of fish nationally.
            However, it should be noted that very few of the vessels in this category pursue
            fisheries for human consumption. In Finland there has always been a very close
            correlation between catches of sprat and herring and the supply of fish
            industrially reduced to ‘fodder’ for the fur trade. As a consequence many of the
            pelagic trawlers are not equipped for large scale commercial fishing for human
            consumption.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            Most fishing opportunities available to the Finnish fleet lie within EU waters.
            Whilst demersal activity for the smaller vessels tends to be undertaken in
            domestic waters the larger pelagic and demersal trawl fleet operates and lands
            more extensively in the Baltic area.

            In 2001 Finnish catchers had access to significant quantities of the available EU
            TAC’s for cod, herring, salmon and sprat in the various and ICES divisions of
            IIIb,c and d. There was also access under bilateral agreements to limited catches
            of cod, herring, sprat and salmon in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian areas of



EN                                                 41                                                EN
            ICES IIId. To fish these waters ‘special permits’ were required from the
            Ministry.

            In 2001 the initial global TAC for the Finnish fleet was 96,377 tonnes and
            175,538 pieces of salmon. The important pelagic species were herring (78,193
            tonnes) and sprat (16,483 tonnes). The uptake on these pelagic quotas was on
            average 98%. The only commercial demersal species was cod (1,710) for which
            the uptake was 95%.

     1.3.   National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            The main delegation provisions authorising secondary legislation about the
            national licensing system and the fishing fleet register can be found in SKok
            1139/1994 – the EU Implementation Law. The Finnish fishing fleet register is
            maintained in close connection with vessel licensing procedures, so that when a
            vessel is granted a licence the contents of the register are simultaneously
            updated. The utilisation of these two instruments therefore ensures that every
            fishing vessel with a valid licence is also included on the fleet register.

            The Finnish authorities manage their available fishing opportunities by means of
            the national fishing vessel licensing scheme. The requirements to restrict fishing
            effort was not introduced until 2003. The registration of fishing vessels is
            undertaken in the regional TE-centres (see below 2.1.) only after approval of the
            Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which considers each application in line
            with Finnish MAGP IV obligations.

            The licence when issued is valid for an indefinite period and permits the vessel
            to fish using only a specified gear; polyvalent licences are not issued. The vessel
            can therefore fish unrestricted until the Ministry decides otherwise. National
            fishery ‘stops’ have taken place quite regularly in the reference period,
            especially in the herring and sprat fisheries when the Ministry thought an
            overshoot of the TAC at the end of the year was a possibility. The licenses
            granted to vessels wishing to fish in third country waters are valid for a period of
            one month only.

            As noted above the Ministry, via the TE-centres, maintains the national fleet
            register. All data concerning vessel characteristics are extracted from certificates
            issued by surveyors from Regional Navigational Districts who are employed by
            the Ministry of Transport and Communication. These surveyors undertake the
            registration of all Finnish vessels over 10 metres operating offshore and 12
            metre vessels fishing inshore waters. For vessels below these parameters the
            vessel owner himself must supply details which officials of TE-centres then
            verify.

            The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (the FGFRI) is responsible
            for producing all official Finnish fishery statistics. The source of these figures
            are the relevant data recorded in EC logbooks, landing declarations and sales-
            notes which are input into the catch registration system by staff in the Regional
            Units. It is the responsibility of the Regional Units to undertake cross checks on
            the source documents received from the industry.



EN                                                42                                               EN
     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Finnish sovereignty and jurisdiction

              The Finnish coastline is 1,126 km long (excluding islands and coastal
              indentations). There are some 370 landing locations situated along the whole
              coastline, but it should be noted that many ports are ice bound for a substantial
              part of the year and fishing activity is almost completely halted during these
              periods. The vast majority of landings of herring and sprat take place in
              approximately 10 of the most important ports. As detailed in 1.1. above there is
              a relatively large fleet with diverse activity to be controlled – 3,571 vessels in
              2002. Additionally, recreational fishing activity is recognised as a control issue.

              The Åland Islands should be considered as part of the Finnish mainland in the
              context of this Working Paper, but it should be noted that vessels registered on
              the mainland are also required to possess a special ‘permit’ to fish inside waters
              designated as those belonging to the Provincial Government.

              The Finnish EEZ encompasses approximately 20% of ICES areas IIId and its
              waters also provide fishing opportunities for vessels from Sweden and Estonia.
              Pelagic fisheries for herring and sprat are prosecuted by the trawl fleet of the
              4L2 segment, which mostly works within Finnish waters but also occasionally
              in Swedish and Danish waters. The limited number of vessels in the demersal
              segment of 4L3 operate almost exclusively outside Finnish waters. The large
              number of small coastal vessels of segments 4L1 and 4L4 are involved with
              fishing for salmon and other non TAC species by the use of passive gear, i.e.
              traps, longlines and gill nets.

              The Finnish herring quota (by far the most important fishery) is split between
              catches which can be taken in ICES IIIb,c,d and the IBSFC Management Unit 3
              (ICES sub-divisions 30 and 31 and the part of sub-division 29 situated north of
              59°30´ North). The split in quota between these areas in 2001 was 19,163 tonnes
              and 59,030 tonnes respectively, and the final quota uptake was 99% for both
              stock areas. Because of the high level of quota uptake the monitoring of catches
              and landings is a priority for the Regional Units.

              Control in the salmon fishery is complicated because of the lack of a clear legal
              definition of salmon traps, i.e. the same trap can be used to catch whitefish and
              several gill-nets can be put together to form a ‘trap’. Control is additionally
              complicated by the fact that, under certain circumstances, fishermen can fix
              traps in some closed areas – notably in the terminal areas of the Kemi and Ii
              rivers.

     1.4.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

              The Finnish EEZ is bordered by the waters of Sweden, the Russian Federation
              and Estonia.




EN                                                  43                                              EN
               The larger demersal and pelagic Finnish vessels (mostly over 24 metre) also
               operate in the waters of Sweden and Denmark and land their catches in Danish
               (Bornholm) and Swedish (Grönhögen and Karlskrona) ports.

               Under ‘special permit’ schemes Finnish vessels also have access to the third
               country waters of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In Estonian waters herring and
               sprat are fished and subsequently landed in Tallin. In Latvian and Lithuanian
               waters Finnish gill netters target cod and land in Denmark or Sweden. Salmon is
               also caught by drift and gill net in Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian waters.

     1.4.3.    Landings and imports

               The total catch of commercial fishing in year 2002 was in excess of 100,000
               tonnes. The overwhelming majority of this was herring (82 %) and sprat (16 %)
               and the main part of these catches was landed for fodder for the fur industry.

               With the exception of cod, the vast majority of the national catch is landed in
               Finland. The most important landing ports, involved in the landings of pelagic
               species, are Hanko, Uusikaupunki, Rauma, Reposaari and Kaskinen. However,
               as explained in section 1.4.1. above there are numerous other landing points,
               many possessing only the most rudimentary of facilities. The majority of salmon
               was landed at such small ports in the Bay of Bothnia.

               There are no requirements under Finnish legislation that landings of any type are
               subject to prior notification, landed into designated ports or sold through
               authorised outlets. There are no auctions in Finland, but all first hand buyers of
               fish must be registered in order to buy and sell fish and their names are entered
               on a register kept in the various TE-centres.

               During 2002, 78% of the cod caught by Finnish vessels was landed in Denmark
               and 22% in Sweden. As explained above, the activities of foreign vessels was
               minimal. Some Swedish and Estonian vessels land herring and sprat, for which
               4 hours prior notification is supplied as required by the Control Regulation.
               Additionally, some transhipping activity takes place to Russian Federation
               factory ships in the ports of Hanko and Uusikaupunki. There is no information
               on what controls were undertaken on such transhipping operations.

               Because of the lack of choice available to the national consumer from catches in
               its national waters Finland is dependant on imports of substantial quantities for
               domestic consumption and to supply the national processing industry. In 1999 to
               meet this demand Finland imported some 34,360 tonnes of fishery products
               valued at € 101 million5, the majority of this was sourced from Norway,
               Sweden, Denmark and Iceland. Exports during the same period totalled nearly
               22,000 tonnes valued at € 20 million. The main export was of herring to the
               Russian Federation. The Customs Authority as a part of the Ministry of Finance
               is responsible for the inspection of documentation on the import of fish and
               fishery products.


     5
              Source - - Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute annual statistics 2000.



EN                                                          44                                      EN
     1.4.4.    Marketing, processing and transport

               As explained above, there are no auction centres where fish is openly placed for
               sale. Therefore purchasing of fish takes the form of ‘contract or direct sales’.
               Wholesale merchants, fish processors and also in some instances the retailers
               themselves buy fish in the ports direct from the fishermen and transport it to
               their premises for processing. Some agreements between fishermen and buyers
               have existed for many years. All first-hand buyers of fish must be registered in
               order to buy and sell fish and their details are entered on an approved list kept in
               the various TE-centres.

               In 2000 Finland had more than 2006 enterprises whose main activity was the
               processing of fish. The majority of these are small businesses, and many are
               engaged in other operations besides fish processing, i.e. wholesale, fishing, fish
               farming. The processing industry and fishmongers employ about 1,200 people
               nationally. There are approximately 10 main processors for the fodder industry
               with other smaller enterprises also existing, and the main centre for this activity
               is in the Vaasa area. Fish for the fodder processors is often transported
               considerable distances from the point of landing depending on the seasonal
               location of the herring and sprat fisheries.

               In 2000 the Ministry approved the formation of the only Finnish national
               Producers Organisation (PO) – the Producers Organisation of the Professional
               Fishermen’s Co-operative. This group comprised of 25 members in 2002, all of
               whom were involved in pelagic fisheries for herring and sprat. The Ministry has
               not devolved any quota management responsibilities to the PO, whose main
               impact on the activities of its members is with market support measures taken in
               instances when catches cannot be sold.

               The inspectors of the Regional Units are responsible for enforcing compliance
               with EC marketing Regulations. However, in practice there is no control on the
               common marketing standards made in the ports and fish (mainly herring) is not
               sorted in accordance with EC requirements. Fish is not labelled for freshness
               and size before sale. As stated most pelagic landings are destined for the fodder
               processors and landings of mixed sprat and herring predominate. The system of
               size grading is based on national regulations which states that herring should be
               sorted into categories according to the number of fish per kilo, although in
               reality this is not done.

               The Ministry is responsible for organising the framework for market support
               measures and monitor the payments made for fish withdrawals. There is no
               information to clarify whether support measures have been complied with and if
               freshness and size criteria are applied to lots withdrawn for financial support
               measures by the PO.

               Given the nature of landings in Finnish ports, fish is frequently transported from
               the points of landing to processing facilities. For instance there is a well


     6
              Source - - Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute annual statistics 2000.



EN                                                          45                                        EN
            established transport infrastructure for the movement of pelagic catches to the
            fodder processors depending on the seasonal movement of the herring and sprat
            fisheries. Given the quantity of transported fish moving throughout Finland the
            verification of transport documentation should be an important area for control
            activity. The competent authorities to undertake checks on transport
            documentation are the Regional units of the TE-centres. Only the national police
            service has the authority to stop a lorry when it is in transit. The Ministry has not
            issued guidelines to the Regional units on transport documentation so in practice
            there is no control on the movement of fishery products.


     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The implementation of the CFP in Finland was carried out by amending the
            basic national law concerning fisheries, the Fisheries Act (kalastuslaki; initially
            SKok 286/1982), and by adopting a specific law concerning its implementation
            (laki Euroopan yhteisön yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan täytäntöönpanosta (SKok
            1139/1994), the Implementation law. These sources also contain delegation
            provisions forming the base for secondary legislation.

            The overall responsibility for the implementation of CFP, notably the
            monitoring of fisheries activities, belongs to the Ministry of Agriculture and
            Forestry (maa- ja metsätalousministeriö). The practical tasks of control are
            allocated to the Department of Fisheries and Game (kala- ja riistaosasto). The
            Department further delegates the role of control and enforcement to the
            Employment and Economic Development Centres (the TE-centres). Within the
            TE-centres the tasks of control are then allocated to Regional Fisheries Units
            (the Regional Units). The various TE-centres have budgetary responsibility for
            these Regional Units.

            There are six of these coastal regional units on the mainland – Kaakkois-Suomi,
            Uusimaa, Varsinais-Suomi, Pohjanmaa, Kainuu and Lappi. Additionally SKok
            1139/1994 stipulates that matters belonging to the legislative competencies of
            the autonomous province of Åland Islands are dealt with in the laws and
            regulations of its local Parliament. The Province therefore is responsible for its
            part in fisheries control and has its own fisheries administration with
            competencies for the practical monitoring and control of fisheries.

            The Ministry of the Interior (sisäasiainministeriö) is also involved in the control
            of fishing activities. It delegates these duties to the Border Control
            Administration (rajavartiolaitos), which utilises its Coast Guard maritime units
            (merivartiosto) for surveillance of fishing activity. Whilst the Coast Guard has a
            number of security-related tasks, its main contribution to fisheries control is the
            monitoring of fishing activity at sea of Finnish and foreign fishing vessels. The
            Coast Guard will also provide vessels for control purposes to the inspectors of
            the Regional Units. Within the Ministry of the Interior, the police (Poliisi)
            investigates infringements and prepares all criminal cases which go before the




EN                                                 46                                               EN
            courts. The police service also acts in a support role if requested by the Regional
            Units.

            The Ministry, at national level, and the Regional Units are identified as the
            competent authorities responsible for monitoring the compliance with the rules
            for the common organisation of the market. Additionally the Institute for
            Veterinary and Foodstuff Topics (eläinlääkintä- ja elintarvikelaitos), a separate
            authority operating under the supervision of the Ministry, has been entrusted the
            administration of imports and exports of animal-derived foodstuffs. It performs
            veterinary checks at borders.

            The Customs Authority (Tullihallitus) operating as a part of the Ministry of
            Finance (valtiovarainministeriö) is responsible for controls on the import of fish
            and fishery products into Finland.

            The Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (Riista- ja kalatalouden
            tutkimuslaitos, the FGFRI), which is based in Helsinki, is responsible for the
            collation of all official fisheries statistics. This organisation is located within the
            Ministry. All catch and landings data input into the national database by staff in
            the Regional Units are first sent to the Department in Helsinki which then
            forwards the data to the FGFRI. The originals logbooks, landing declarations
            and sales-notes are also sent to FGFRI which makes random cross checks to
            verify the accuracy of the information.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            The powers of control of Finnish fisheries inspectors emanate from both the
            Fisheries Act (Article 100) and the Implementation Law (Article 5). All
            designated inspectors are warranted for control and enforcement purposes and
            inspectors are defined by Article 13 of the Fisheries Act as officials of either the
            TE-centre Regional Units, Coast Guard or the Police.

            The Fisheries Act empowers the inspectors of the control authorities, mentioned
            above, with the right to check the fishing gears and the storage facilities of fish
            traders. It also establishes the right to seize illegal gears found in use. These
            competencies were subsequently enlarged by the Implementation Law (notably
            in Article 5) which grants powers for inspectors to have access to documentation
            (landing declarations, transport documents and sales notes) as well as other
            relevant information concerned with the trade in fishery products. Inspectors are
            also entitled to board fishing vessels or enter private premises, where gear, fish
            or relevant documentation is stored. In addition to illegal gear catches can also
            be seized.

            If further investigative measures need to be taken by the inspectors of the TE-
            centres they are obliged to request the police or the Coast Guard for official
            assistance. Officers of the Coast Guard service can only make controls at sea
            and have no role to play in controls ashore.




EN                                                 47                                                 EN
     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            In Finland, sanctioning of infringements of the fisheries legislation is based on
            criminal procedure. Reports from the inspection authorities concerning
            suspected infringements are forwarded to the police authorities for investigation.
            Depending on the seriousness of the offence, sanctions are administered directly
            by the police (minor infringements) or through court decision, after prosecution
            (more serious cases).

            The main provisions concerning fisheries infringements can be found in the
            Fisheries Act (SKok 286/1982, as last amended by SKok 518/2002). Generally
            speaking there are two basic categories of offences that are relevant in relation
            to the CFP.

            The principal category consists of the “standard” fisheries offences, and the list
            of these can, by reference in Article 107 of the Fisheries Act, be found in
            Chapter 48a, Article 2, of the Penal Code. (Chapter 48a concerns infringements
            in relation to natural resources.) An example of a “standard” offence is when a
            person to a “significant degree” contravenes the rules on fishing gear, fishing
            methods, fishing prohibitions and minimum sizes contained in the Fisheries Act.
            Furthermore it constitutes an offence to fish with such gear or methods, or
            during such periods, that are prohibited according to the rules of the Common
            Fisheries Policy.

            A prerequisite is that the infringement has been committed with intent or by
            serious negligence. Also an attempt to commit an intentional crime is
            punishable. The punishment for such an offence ranges from a fine to two years
            of prison, although it is expressly stated that the provision is accessory to any
            other provisions laid down in law that provide for stricter penalties for the same
            infringement.

            The second category of offences can be found in Article 108 of the Fisheries
            Act. This article provides that for lesser infringements of the fisheries rules, the
            offender can be sentenced to a fine for “fisheries misdemeanour”. The
            prerequisite is that the offence has been committed with intent or by “simple”
            negligence. An attempt to commit a fisheries misdemeanour is not punishable.
            The penalty for infringements of this category is a fine, but also this provision is
            accessory to any other provisions providing for stricter penalties.

            Inspections carried out by TE-Centres inspectors are normally documented in an
            inspection report. Apparent infringements are recorded on the inspection reports.
            The inspection reports are presented to the master of the vessel, and the master
            has to sign the form. Inspection reports are kept and archived locally.

            Officers from the TE-Centres do not have the authority to independently
            investigate an apparent infringement. The facts and evidence of a detected
            infringement have to be sent to the police authorities for investigation and
            follow up. The police can also give assistance to inspectors at an earlier stage
            when needed. The report from the inspection authorities is not in itself sufficient
            basis for a prosecution, and the police must hear the suspect and get a statement.



EN                                                48                                               EN
     After having investigated the case the Police will decide if there is sufficient
     evidence to initiate a prosecution. In certain minor cases the police may also,
     after having verified the evidence and investigated the case, impose a fine (or a
     summary penal fee) without forwarding the case to the local prosecutor.

     Based on the results of the police investigation, the local prosecutor has the
     discretion to decide if a prosecution should be initiated or not. If he is satisfied
     that the prerequisites of the offence are fulfilled, he should bring a prosecution
     before the court of first instance, which will then judge the case on the merits.
     He can also, if he finds that the level of seriousness of the offence is sufficiently
     low, refer the case back to the police with a request that an order of summary
     punishment is issued. Thirdly, he can waive prosecution, even if there is
     probable cause, e.g. if the offence is insignificant, if there is a low degree of
     culpability or if the person is younger than 18.

     The decision to sanction can be taken either directly by the police or by a court
     after prosecution, depending on the seriousness of the case. Apparently the main
     part of the infringement cases in Finland will fall under the first category. The
     rule is that if the infringement is likely only to result in a fine (even if the
     maximum possible punishment for the offence according to law is prison up to
     six months), and there is no confiscation involved or at least that the
     confiscation value is no more than 1,000 €, the police can set the fine to be paid
     and issue an order of summary punishment. Also the prosecutor, if the case has
     been brought to his attention, can decide that the matter shall be dealt with in
     this manner and will then ask the police to issue such an order. After prosecution
     the case is judged by the court of first instance, consisting of one judge and three
     laymen.

     Fines are calculated according to a system with “day-fines”, which basically
     means that the fines will be set on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and
     a person’s daily income. The Penal Code states that the fine shall be set so that it
     is reasonable in view of the solvency of the person fined. The number of fine
     units – minimum 1 and maximum 120 – depends on the seriousness of the
     crime. For repeat offences the number will be increased. The amount of the fine
     unit depends on the person’s net revenue and assets.

     Warnings can be used for minor offences especially if it is expected that only a
     fine would be impose. However, each infringement detected is treated
     individually and it is not always the rule that warnings are issued instead of the
     case being handed directly to the police. TE’s keep record of these warnings, but
     the information is only kept locally, in the region. It is common practise to allow
     a master of a fishing vessel two written warnings, issued for the same type of
     apparent infringements. It is not until the master has committed the same
     infraction a third time that the matter is forwarded to the police for follow up by
     criminal procedure.




EN                                          49                                               EN
     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The total annual cost of fisheries protection in Finland has been estimated by the
            authorities to be in the region of € 350,000. More detailed figures are required
            from the Finnish authorities to break down this total into more specific
            budgetary costings in order to identify specific expenditure on enforcement
            action.

     3.2.   Human resources

            In 2001 the Ministry employed approximately 17 inspectors for control in the
            Regional Units. There were 4 persons based in the Ministry’s headquarters in
            Helsinki whose role was purely for policy and administrative tasks relating to
            fisheries. The Ministry recruited 2 extra inspection staff in 2000 to reinforce
            effective control presence in the ports. The Ministry’s headquarters is situated in
            Helsinki and six Regional Units are found in the coastal regions. There is also a
            fisheries unit in the Provincial Government of the Åland Islands (one inspector
            and one fisheries advisor). The coastal offices are provided with administrative
            staff in a supporting role. Of the 17 inspectors based in the TE-centres
            approximately 10 are actively involved in day to day activity in the ports.

            The Border Control Administration (rajavartiolaitos), which in utilising its
            maritime units (merivartiosto - the Coast Guard) for the surveillance of the
            fishing activities provided 431 staff for fisheries control. The offices of the
            Coast Guard are split nationally into three main regions with 6 subordinate
            districts. There are a total of 27 Coast Guard stations nationally. The aircrew of
            aircraft used for maritime surveillance are not designated as fisheries inspectors.

            Inspectors appointed by the Ministry mostly possess a background in fisheries
            and have either a formal education in related topics or practical experience.
            Training courses are organised for new inspectors and training continues on the
            job with new recruits operating firstly under the responsibility of their more
            experienced colleagues.

     3.3.   Other resources

            The Regional Units normally have the use of official cars and four offices have
            small trailer boats which can be used for patrolling inshore waters.

            The Coast Guard has the use of two Dornier 228 aircraft and three helicopters
            for aerial surveillance. For seagoing surveillance the Coast Guard uses 133
            vessels of various sizes for patrol activity throughout the national EEZ.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            For the period 2000 – 2002, Finland received the following Community
            financial contribution for fisheries control (in €) :




EN                                                50                                              EN
                      2000                           2001                        2002

                      133,232                        334,480                     342,479

            Financial assistance received from the Commission was targeted towards
            improvements in operational and technical systems and equipment. In 2002 aid
            was used particularly for the development of VMS, for training and the
            upgrading of certain fisheries databases.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            All catch and landings data are input into the national database by staff in the
            Regional Units and manual cross checking of data is undertaken in the TE-
            centres prior to input. Whilst no official target for the cross checking procedures
            are set it is likely that a high percentage is subject to scrutiny.

            The FGFRI is responsible for the final collation of all official fisheries statistics.
            The originals logbooks, landing declarations and sales-notes are also sent to the
            FGFRI in Helsinki where random cross checks are made before the official
            statistics figures are produced. It should be noted that these cross checks are not
            made for control purposes.

            All catch registration information is sourced from one of four types of
            document:

            •     The EC Logbooks which in Finland also contains information of the fish
                  buyer

            •     Supporting sales-notes supplied by fish buyers

            •     A monthly based coastal fishing journal (rannikkokalastuslomake) which
                  collects the information from under 10 meter vessels involved in small
                  scale coastal fisheries.

            •     Declarations (lohi-ilmoituslomake) from under 10 meter vessels where
                  there is a requirement to report salmon catches within 48 hours.

            All landings data are transferred electronically from the Regional Units to the
            Department in Helsinki, where attention is directed at monitoring the uptake of
            national quotas.

            As explained above the national fleet register is compiled by the Ministry, via
            the TE-centres. The registration/licensing of fishing vessels by the TE-centres
            takes place only after approval by the Ministry, which considers each
            application in line with Finnish MAGP IV obligations. The licensing system is
            linked to the vessel register for all practical purposes.




EN                                                 51                                                EN
            There is no co-ordinated national surveillance database but details on vessel
            sightings are supplied by the Coast Guard service to the TE-centres. The aircraft
            fax hard copies of handwritten sightings information to the Regional Units. Co-
            ordination therefore should be considered ad hoc rather than routine.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Finnish authorities have
            established a satellite based monitoring system to monitor the positions of
            Community vessels. The national authorities have a control methodology in
            place to monitor vessels with a VMS derogation in order to ensure compliance.

            The national FMC is located in the offices of the Ministry in Helsinki. In total
            48 vessels have been equipped with satellite terminals and provide position
            reports. Technical and operational measures have been adopted to ensure that
            the VMS is fully operational in accordance with Community requirements.

            The functions and staff of the FMC are in line with the requirements of the
            Control Regulation. However a deficiency in the system has been identified due
            to the lack of automation and the need to link it with the fleet register and catch
            registration system. In addition it is evident that there are no established
            methodologies or practices for verification of fishing vessel activity.

            Remote access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing
            the data recorded by the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) has been provided.

            In 2002 VMS was installed in the offices of three of the Regional Units, and a
            fourth office also had a remote connection. VMS was therefore accessible to the
            inspection units on the coast.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Finnish sovereignty or jurisdiction

            The Coast Guard undertakes all surface and aerial surveillance in the national
            EEZ. However, it should be noted that patrol activity by the Coast Guard for
            fisheries purposes is largely undertaken as part of their general border control
            duties.

            Surveillance by patrol vessels and the aircraft is concentrated on the areas where
            fishing activity is expected to be most intensive or where there is a possibility
            that there is non-compliance with the rules in force. During the period 2000 -
            2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general EEZ, and the national 12
            mile limit in regard to designation. It should be noted that Swedish vessels are
            designated to actually fish in to the 4 mile limit of the Finnish coast.
            Surveillance aircraft have the flying capability to patrol the whole EEZ in a
            single day.

            Inshore inspection activity are also undertaken by ‘field’ staff of the TE-centres.
            Additional joint operations are undertaken by Regional Unit staff in conjunction


EN                                                52                                              EN
            with the Coast Guard service and on a few occasions with the Police.
            Monitoring the compliance with the closure of the salmon fishery during the
            spawning migration during the spring, together with controls of the mesh size in
            the fykes/traps, is also carried out by the inspectors of the Regional Units in co-
            operation with the Coast Guard. Both aircraft and helicopters are used for
            monitoring the legality of the traps used. Vessels of the Coast Guard undertake
            patrols in inshore and coastal waters on a frequent basis, a patrol objective being
            to monitor the compliance with the seasonal stop in the salmon fishery.

            A particular problem exists with control measures which can be taken on
            vessels/fishermen operating in private waters. In regard to salmon this is made
            very difficult because licences to set traps are not required in private waters. In
            principle the same situation exists for trawler activity in such private waters.
            Such activity is however relatively small scale due to the geography of the
            coastline and the relative shallowness in the water of the areas concerned, i.e.
            the south west archipelago. Given the fact that the Coast Guard does not
            undertake controls in private waters, this does pose some problems for effective
            control in certain waters.

            During 2000 and 2001 some 2,383 patrols were made by inspection vessels of
            the Coast Guard service, and a further 68 joint patrols were made with Regional
            Unit staff. It should be noted that the Coast Guard vessels make fisheries patrols
            in conjunction with their other border control duties. At sea a total of 481
            Finnish and 9 foreign vessels were inspected. Aerial surveillance in the same
            period shows a total of approximately 3,100 hours flown.

     5.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

            The Finnish authorities do not provide a physical control presence in waters
            outside their own EEZ. Finnish fishing vessels possessing special permits
            operate in third country waters where they are engaged in salmon fisheries in the
            Latvian and Lithuanian EEZ. Herring and sprat are also fished in Estonian
            waters.

            A limited number of vessels fish for cod in the southern part of the Baltic Sea,
            and they operate almost exclusively out of Danish and Swedish ports. During
            the reference period these vessels rarely appeared in Finnish ports and to combat
            this behaviour the Ministry introduced a raft of ‘economic link’ measures in
            2003. Nevertheless, the Ministry monitors the activities of these vessels on the
            basis of information gathered from the EC logbooks, sales notes and VMS data.
            There is some collaboration with Denmark and Sweden on control of the
            landings in their ports.

     5.3.   Landings

            In 2001 there were a total of 17 shore based inspectors in the ports. The Ministry
            ensures a certain amount of flexibility in shore based control activity by
            allocating human resources as necessary to seasonal fisheries and priorities in
            catch management. The main purpose of physical checks on landings have been




EN                                                53                                              EN
            identified as the verification of compliance with technical measures and
            compliance with control measures in respect of EC logbooks and sales-notes.

            In the period 2000-2002 approximately 553 landings were monitored and a
            further 3,456 vessels were observed. These inspections encompass several
            aspects of control including checks on the EC logbook, gear inspection and
            assessment of by-catches. Pelagic landing are identified as the main priority for
            landing control.

            The Ministry has not introduced restrictive measures requiring prior notification
            of landing or designated ports for pelagic discharges.

            Catch data and information available from sales-notes are entered into the
            computerised systems at the port offices and cross checks are made manually to
            verify the information. VMS ‘client’ stations are situated in four of the TE-
            centres and cross checks against EC logsheets are also made manually if there is
            suspicion that infringements have been committed.

            Because catches are not sold through any auction system, certain problems exist
            in ensuring that sales-note information is always received. However, because of
            the need to supply sales-notes to accompany EC logsheets, the rate of return for
            pelagic catches is high, in excess of 90%. The submission of sales notes for
            salmon landings has proved more problematic and whilst the Ministry claim that
            in 2001 the return rate was approximately 90% the figure is likely to be
            substantially lower than this.

            In 2000 Finland introduced a catch sampling scheme in order to help assess the
            level of by-catch in the pelagic fishery. In 2002 an official target of 5 % was set
            for the landings to be checked. The main objective is to ensure that there is more
            accurate recording of catches by the masters of vessels. The sampling
            methodology used by inspectors during port inspections consists of taking
            samples of the catch and comparing these with quantities declared in the EC
            logbook.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The inspectors with the competency to make day to day controls for marketing
            are the shore based fishery officers of TE-centres. However, with the absence of
            auctions and all fish being sold direct to processors there is in practice no
            programme for control of the compliance with common marketing standards.

            There is only one recognised national PO. Its members are engaged solely in the
            pelagic fishery and land approximately 50 % of the herring used for human
            consumption in Finland. In respect of withdrawals and intervention measures,
            inspectors from the TE-centres check that the quantities and quality of fish is
            correct and complete the necessary documentation. Administrative checks are
            undertaken on processors and storage facilities to ensure compliance in regards
            to pricing arrangements and storage aid. The Department’s Commercial Fishing
            Unit is responsible for monitoring the financial aid given to this PO.




EN                                                54                                              EN
            The Ministry issues no instructions on what checks are required on transport
            documentation, and there was no programme of inspection in place during the
            reference period.

            Finland reported no serious infringements concerning the stocking, processing,
            placing for sale and transport of fishery products which did not meet EC
            marketing standards in the period 2000 - 2002.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports for 2000 to 2002 as submitted to the
            Commission, surveillance and inspection activities both ashore and at sea were
            carried out by the various competent authorities as outlined in section 2.1.
            above.

            During the reference period the Finnish authorities reported that 212 days were
            spent on maritime surface patrol – the Coast Guard making 2,383 individual
            patrols. Some 1,314 inspections were made on fixed gear such as gill nets and
            salmon traps/fykes. A total of 484 vessel inspections were undertaken and 533
            visits were made to the various harbours. Aerial patrols totalled 3,100 flying
            hours.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Community rules the Finnish authorities reported 14 serious
            infringements in the reference period of 2000 - 2002. These involved 3 types of
            illegal activity.

            Specifically in 2002 Finland discovered and reported only 2 serious
            infringements, both concerned vessels flying the Finnish flag or involved
            Finnish fishermen and involved only 1 type of mis-behaviour, namely the
            falsification of data required in control documents (E1). Both these
            infringements were discovered ashore. Administrative proceedings were
            initiated in both cases but a penalty was imposed in only 1 case. The fine was €
            420. The Finnish authorities did not institute any withdrawal of fishing vessel
            licences.

            Verbal and written warnings are given for minor transgressions. Written
            warnings are also issued in respect of more serious transgressions where
            prosecution may not have been in the public interest because of the scale of the
            offence. In 2001 some 2,088 instances resulted in such admonitions.

            The Finnish PO has an obligation to enforce disciplinary measures on members
            who break internal rules. However, the Ministry has not commented on whether
            such sanctions have been applied had this happened.




EN                                              55                                             EN
     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            A structured liaison mechanism is in place to facilitate co-operation between the
            Ministry, the TE-centres and the Coast Guards maritime and aerial service. In
            principle this is focused on achieving optimum efficiency and effectiveness
            from the available resources in line with defined control priorities and
            objectives.

            However, shortcomings have been identified in the day to day management of
            control activity by the central authority in Helsinki. There is a great deal of
            autonomous decision making made on priorities for control by the Regional
            Units and the Coast Guard and this has resulted in a fractured and rather
            uncoordinated programme of control. This has been especially noted in the TE-
            centres where levels of enforcement and the methodology of controls applied
            prove to be diverse and not always the most effective.

            There is also co-operation between the police and the Regional Units in respect
            of the compilation of pre-trial investigation reports. Some contact had also taken
            place between the Regional Units and the veterinary sector.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            Finland has developed a system of co-operation with other Member States,
            notably with Sweden and Denmark on the control of activities by Finnish
            vessels in their waters. To strengthen the links there have been visits by Finnish
            inspectors to both Denmark and Sweden within the IBSFC’s joint inspection
            scheme. There was also a visit to Estonia by a Finnish inspector within the
            framework of the same scheme. The few vessels in the demersal segment
            involved with catching cod operate exclusively outside Finnish waters so there
            are no enforcement implications of the BACOMA measures introduced. The
            Finnish authorities are simply required to pass details on gear requirements to
            the vessel owners.

            Finland has established operational protocols in relation to the supply of VMS
            data with other MS and the European Commission.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            Historically fisheries control in Finland has been influenced by specific
            indigenous characteristics of the fishing industry. Against this background, the
            Ministry has sought to implement its control obligations after accession to the
            EU in 1995. It is noticeable, within the reporting period of 2000 to 2002, that
            meeting these obligations has been a priority, especially in enhancing effective
            control in the ports where practical enforcement was identified as deficient.
            Nonetheless, the Ministry has yet to fully develop a comprehensive national
            strategy for fisheries control.




EN                                                56                                             EN
     The Commission has noted that the Provincial Government of the Åland Islands
     have full autonomy in respect of fishing control within its own territorial waters
     and where the central authorities do not have jurisdiction. Information
     concerning control activity provided by Finland in their annual reports to the
     Commission has included that supplied by the Provincial Government.
     However, the data is lacking in several respects, notably on the level of
     surveillance and inspection activity. The Commission therefore does not have a
     comprehensive overview of the levels of control in the Province. The Ministry
     has admitted that in effect it has little influence over fishery control activity
     undertaken by the provincial authority. It would appear, however, that the
     proportion of Finnish catches landed in Åland is fairly insignificant.

     The Ministry, the authority entrusted the overall responsibility for fisheries
     control, still lacks sufficient human resources for effective supervision of these
     activities. In the Regional Units, despite the recruitment of 2 new inspectors, the
     numbers are still insufficient and there is continued pressure for them to become
     involved with tasks not directly related to active enforcement.

     The co-operation between the various Finnish authorities involved in fisheries
     control would obviously benefit from the adoption of a coherent control
     programme, with tasks defined and clarified for all involved. Fisheries
     surveillance at sea is mostly performed by the Coast Guard and there appears to
     be only opportunistic co-operation with the Ministry and TE-centres. The
     Commission remains unsure if control activity by the Coast Guard units is given
     the priority it deserved and indeed whether the inspections which are carried out
     are effective. Given the resources at its disposal, activity by the Coast Guard
     seems limited and concentrated on checking static gear. It is not entirely clear if
     the training of Cost Guard officials fully familiarises them with the obligations
     deriving from Community law. The Coast Guard seems to undertake very
     limited controls on trawler activity in respect of gear, catch composition and
     inspection of the EC logbook.

     Finland has implemented the requirements set in Community law concerning
     catch registration. In the reference period there seems to have been a noticeable
     increase in the submission of landings data, but the Commission remains
     unconvinced that the verification of these document is of a satisfactory standard.
     The Commission also remains unconvinced that substantial quantities of herring
     and sprat are not misreported because of the high percentage of mixed catches of
     these species which occur in the pelagic fishery. ICES has said that the by-catch
     of herring in the sprat fisheries may be up to 35% and anecdotal evidence
     suggests it could well be higher than this. However, it is noted that the levels of
     by-catches can vary considerably both geographically and seasonably. The
     Commission therefore considers that particular effort should be made, via
     specific control programmes, to ensure correct catch registration in such
     circumstances. It is also noted that inspectors, when making controls in the
     harbours, ensure that the correct by-catches are entered in the EC Logbooks.
     However, quite what happens when they are absence remains open to question.
     This whole situation is exacerbated by inadequate weighing facilities in the ports
     which severely restricts the opportunity for the inspectors to verify on the spot
     catches declared in EC logbooks.


EN                                         57                                              EN
     Finland has also implemented measures to control the development of the
     structure of the fishing fleet, such as the national application of MAGP IV
     segmentation. The Commission is unconvinced that the recorded details of
     vessel characteristics have been verified sufficiently. Data concerning the
     numerous smaller vessels is based purely on voluntary submission of data from
     the vessel owners themselves. In addition it is felt that the Maritime
     Administrative Agency is not sufficiently resourced to undertake technical
     checks on vessels to which registration documents have been issued, again with
     a lot of the information recorded being supplied by the owners themselves.
     Therefore, the possible errors in the fleet register have not been quantified.

     In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Finnish national
     authorities have established a FMC and the national authorities have a control
     methodology in place to monitor vessels transmitting VMS.

     Infringements observed during inspection activities do not appear to be
     sufficiently followed up by the national authorities. The existing procedural
     demands of police investigations and involvement of local prosecutors have
     made it extremely cumbersome to get infringement cases into the courtroom.
     The number of infringements which have resulted in prosecutions has remained
     very low, and the average fine imposed is the lowest among the Member States.
     The Commission is therefore not convinced that the sanctioning regime in place
     provides an effective follow-up of fisheries infringements or that the sanctions
     imposed constitute a proper deterrent.

     In regard to the marketing of fishery products, the Ministry does not ensure that
     the industry complies with common marketing standards. The level of
     compliance with market financial support measures remains unsubstantiated.
     Additionally there is no programme for checking documentation for catches
     transported direct from the point of discharge to the processors.




EN                                        58                                             EN
                                          FRANCE

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            France has Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts and also overseas territories. Its
            fishing fleet is the third in the European Union in terms of tonnage and engine
            power, fourth in the number of vessels and in terms of catches and fifth in the
            number of fishermen.

     1.1.   Fleet

            The French fishing fleet is present in most of the fisheries of the Community,
            international and third country waters. It is divided into coastal, middle and
            distant waters fisheries, as well as continental and overseas registered fleets,
            involving a large number of vessels operating from numerous harbours. The
            distant waters fleet concerns a limited number of vessels, firstly the vessels
            exclusively operating from the Atlantic and English Channel coast harbours,
            mainly Boulogne and Lorient, and secondly the vessels operating in
            international and third country waters.

            The French fleet has been divided into 21 MAGP IV segments, of which 10
            concern the overseas fleet and 3 the Mediterranean fleet. In order to meet the
            French objectives for the MAGP IV, France has mainly reduced the fishing
            effort and capacity by means of a large withdrawal plan. However, if the fleet
            capacity decreased from 8,176 vessels in 2000 to 8,095 in 2002, the total main
            engine power increased during the same period from 1,107,590 kW to 1,111,760
            kW and the tonnage from 222,505 GT to 229,506 GT. This is mainly due to the
            development of the overseas fleet capacity within the framework of specific aid
            programmes applicable in these regions. The continental fleet capacity has
            decreased during the same period.

            The largest segments in terms of number of vessels are with 26 %, the northern
            small scale coastal vessels (4F1), with 20 % the trawlers < 30 m fishing in the
            Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and the North Sea (4F2) and with 19 % the
            small scale Mediterranean fleet (4F7). The largest segments in terms of engine
            power are with 33 % the trawlers < 30 m (4F2) and with 15 % the northern
            small scale coastal fleet (4F1).

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            On the Atlantic side, the coastal fleet, the fleet of trawlers, purse seiners and
            vessels using fixed gear fishing in the Community waters benefit from quota for
            demersal and small pelagic species. The fleet of trawlers operating in
            international waters and in the waters of Regional Fishing Organisations (RFO),
            such as NEAFC and CCMLAR, is allocated quota mostly for demersal species.
            Oceanic purse seiners, pelagic trawlers or vessels fishing with live bait, targeting
            tunas in waters covered by ICCAT or IOTTC, benefit from quota for albacore,
            big eye and bluefin tuna. For the other highly migratory species and in almost all


EN                                                59                                               EN
            the areas covered by fisheries agreements (ACP countries) these vessels, when
            they are granted with a licence to do so, benefit from fishing opportunities
            without any catch limitation.

            On the Mediterranean side, within the framework of ICCAT, purse seiners for
            tuna and vessels using driftnet benefit from quota for bluefin tuna, the only
            species subject to quota management in the Mediterranean Sea. No catch
            limitations have been introduced for other species.

            For 2001, the total fishing opportunities coming from initial quota allocated to
            France was 302,502 tonnes. Among the most important species, saithe consisted
            of 52,592 tonnes, blue whiting of 29,899, herring of 26,860, whiting of 19,735
            tonnes and highly migratory species of 18,424 tonnes.

            These fishing opportunities represent approximately 47 % of the annual French
            catches, approximately 650,000 tons. The remainder comes from coastal species
            and from highly migratory species caught in the area covered by ICCAT and
            IOTTC, notably yellowfin and skipjack tunas, which are not subjected to quota,
            from the Mediterranean fisheries, from various fishing agreements (Community
            fishing agreements in ACP countries and private access agreements), as well as
            from CCAMLR fisheries which are not reflected in the above mentioned quotas.

     1.3.   National system for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            The Administrative Centre of Maritime Affairs (Centre Administratif des
            Affaires Maritimes, hereafter CAAM) in Saint-Malo, is the competent authority
            for vessel licensing procedures and maintains the fishing fleet register. The data
            concerning vessel characteristics are supplied by the Interregional Customs
            Directorates (Directions Interrégionales des Douanes), as regards tonnage and
            length, by the Regional Directorates of the Maritime Affairs (Directions
            Régionales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter DRAM) and the Littoral Units of
            the Maritime Affairs (Unités Littorales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter
            ULAM), as regards engine power measurements, and by the Vessel Safety
            Authority (Centre de Sécurité des navires, hereafter CSN) as regards safety
            matters.

            The licensing system implemented by French authorities is built on three types
            of licences, Permis de mise en exploitation (PME), fishing vessels licence and
            special fishing permit (Permis de Pêche Spéciale, hereafter PPS). PME is a
            compulsory primary licence containing the necessary information for the issuing
            of the fishing licence (e.g. the three main gear categories for classification into
            MAGP IV segmentation). PMEs for vessels over 25 meters are issued by the
            Directorate General for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Direction des Pêches
            Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture, hereafter DPMA) within the Ministry of
            Agriculture, while licences for smaller vessels are issued by the regional
            prefects. The Community fishing licences are issued by CAAM, after
            consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. Special fishing permits are issued
            partly by the DRAM and partly by autonomous decision-making bodies, acting
            either on national or regional level.




EN                                                60                                              EN
     A fishing fleet monitoring programme is in place for the management of fleet
     and fishing opportunities, in order to fulfil the objectives and obligations of
     MAGP IV and the rules and arrangements regarding Community structural
     assistance in the fisheries. It is of particular importance to verify that the
     mechanism of fleet entries and exits, approved by the Commission, is complied
     with. Departmental Directorates of Maritime Affairs (Directions
     Départementales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter DDAM) are responsible at
     departmental level for applying and monitoring structural policy. They examine
     applications for a permit to use a vessel for fishing purposes and ensure that the
     French fishing fleet register is permanently updated by electronic means. When
     examining applications for vessel modernisation, replacement or removal they
     ensure that the specifications on the permit to use the vessel (engine output,
     tonnage and length) are respected by cross-checking them with those on file at
     CAAM.

     Regional Directorates of Maritime Affairs (Directions Régionales des Affaires
     Maritimes, hereafter DRAM), in receiving and processing the applications, and
     DPMA, in taking the decision, are responsible for handling any aid request for
     renewal or modernisation in terms of tonnage and power and to ensure that they
     are granted in accordance with Community Regulation. It checks to which
     segment the vessel concerned belongs and calculates the minimum capacity
     level to withdraw. It must verify that the rules on public co-financing in the
     fisheries sector are complied with, and see to it that government aid is not given
     in cases where the entry/exit rate of a renewal or modernisation operation
     excludes this possibility.

     The ULAMs are responsible for verifying at local level that the specifications
     found on board conform to the specifications given on the fishing licence:
     length, tonnage, engine output, fishing gear, place of registration of the vessel
     etc. CSN carries out compulsory annual safety inspections, and will notify the
     Maritime Affairs of any inconsistencies or infringements discovered as regards
     engine output or tonnage. Regional Operational Centres for Surveillance and
     Rescue (Centres Régionaux Opérationels de Surveillance et de Sauvetage,
     hereafter CROSS) placed under the authority of the DRAM, control activity
     restrictions imposed on certain fleet segments under the MAGP IV. If necessary,
     they may ask other services with sea and airborne resources to carry out certain
     tasks.

     In accordance with MAGP IV, a programme for reduction of fishing effort was
     set up for the Mediterranean trawlers, purse seiners for tuna and for pelagic
     trawlers of more than 50 metres. These programmes were notified to the
     Commission and their results, by vessel, are communicated each year in the
     annual report on the situation of the fishing fleet. The Mediterranean trawlers
     are subject to a compulsory stop of any fishing activity between Friday evening
     and Monday morning. The Maritime Affairs services have a precise list
     established by prefectoral decree and are responsible for controlling the
     presence of each of these vessels in port during this period. The 40 purse seiners
     for bluefin tuna are allowed with a maximum number of days at sea, determined
     by annual ministerial decree. For 2000, the licence was valid for 172 days and
     164 days for 2001. The compliance with this obligation has to be checked by the


EN                                        61                                              EN
              Maritime Affairs services which have the detailed monthly navigation
              statements for each vessel. These can be cross-checked with the VMS position
              data available at the FMC.

              Annual quotas are allocated to a total of 15 PO’s or groups of PO’s. The non-
              sector fleet in France is very small and has a total quota allocation of less than
              3,000 tonnes, which represents some 1.75% of the total French quota allocation.
              These allocations are annually published in the French Official Journal.
              Producer organisations are obliged to draw up a management plan for sub-quota
              allocated to them, consisting of a catch plan, a monitoring system and measures
              to be taken in the event of non-compliance by members.

              Logbook figures and sales notes are entered on a database at the Regional
              Centers for Statistical Processing (Centres Régionaux de Traitement Statistique,
              hereafter CRTS). Once the sales data and the logbook data have been compared,
              the CRTS operator will forward two figures to the CAAM. Here all individual
              reports are to be consolidated and forwarded weekly to the ministry for the
              purposes of quota management. These two figures are the logbook figure and
              the “chiffre ventilé” (CV). This C.V. is the figure recommended by the CRTS as
              being the most accurate for quota management. The CV is based on the local
              knowledge of the CRTS personnel.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under French sovereignty or jurisdiction

              France has a total EEZ of 11,248,700 km², of which an overwhelming part is
              constituted by the French overseas departments and territories. Continental
              France has a coastline of approximately 5,500 km (3,800 km on the Atlantic and
              1,700 km on the Mediterranean side).

              Over 4,000 vessels of the French fishing fleet are engaged in coastal fisheries
              close to the mainland. These vessels use a large number of fishing methods.
              Apart from French vessels, other Member States (Spain, Belgium, the
              Netherlands and the United Kingdom) are engaged in fisheries within the French
              EEZ.

     1.4.2.   Community waters, international waters and third country waters

              The middle French Northern Atlantic fleets are essentially operating in
              Community waters of France, in the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel
              and in the waters of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

              Around 158 vessels, middle waters and distant waters vessels fish offshore in
              international and third country waters. Some of these vessels are operating under
              ACP and private access agreements as well as on the high seas. A part of this
              fleet targets mainly tuna in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. At the moment there
              are 28 oceanic freezer purse seiners (with a length from 51 to 107 metres), 1
              longliner (Indian Ocean, based at Réunion), and 5 pole-liners (from 25 to 30
              metres, based in Dakar but fishing mainly in Mauritanian waters). Other vessels



EN                                                 62                                              EN
              in this category are operating under the agreements with northern third-countries
              (Greenland, Iceland, the Faeroe Islands and Norway) and target mainly demersal
              species.

              In the Mediterranean Sea, in the absence of an EEZ, all vessels with the
              exception of small coastal vessels are liable to fish in international waters,
              particularly trawlers, purse seiners and driftnetters.

     1.4.3.   Landings

              Landings by the French fleet annually amount to approximately 600,000 tonnes
              with a value of over 1,000 M€. A clear majority of these landings are made in
              Community ports. The small-scale artisanal fleet usually lands daily, whereas
              the larger vessels make fishing trips lasting 1-2 weeks. In relation to the
              amounts of fish landed, the port of Boulogne is by far the greatest in volume,
              followed by the ports of Lorient, Concarneau and Le Guilvinec.

              The fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, of which more than 80 % of the vessels are
              shorter than 12 metres, mainly operates close to shore, mostly in the Gulf of
              Lyon, and generally lands daily to their homeports or in Spain. Therefore the
              number of landings is very high and exceeds 50,000 tonnes a year. Landings
              passing either through auctions or PO’s represent only 40 % of the value of the
              total catches of the Mediterranean. The port of Sète with 40 % of the value of
              the total catches is the most important.

              At some auctions, notably Boulogne, a large proportion of fish either landed at
              the port or brought in by lorry is sold by prior arrangement. This fish does not
              physically pass through the auction process but is distributed directly on arrival
              to various buyers. The auction centre collects the sales information and enters it
              onto the R.I.C. system. This practice has created, in reality, a “virtual auction”.
              Some larger vessels land direct to either the owning company or to large buyers;
              in some of these cases the owners will submit sales data directly to the CRTS.

     1.4.4.   Import, processing and transport

              The French processing industry is very dependent on raw materials imported
              either from other Member States or from outside the Community. Northern
              European countries, notably the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and
              Iceland, remain the principal suppliers. Fish arrives mainly by road transport but
              also by air and sea.

              Boulogne is the most important commercial platform in France. In addition to
              the approximately 60,000 tonnes landed annually at the port, more than 250,000
              tonnes arrive by other means.

              From 2000 to 2002, the total annual French import was stable at approximately
              1,030,000 tonnes while the export decreased from 485,950 to 406,900 tonnes.
              During the same period, the deficit in the commercial balance in fishery
              products increased from 2,098 M€ to 2,272 M€.




EN                                                  63                                              EN
     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The basic legal instrument governing sea fisheries is the Sea Fisheries Law of 9
            January 1852, as later amended. It contains the general framework for the
            regulation of fisheries, and also provisions on the penal sanctions to be imposed
            for infringements of the rules as well as other provisions of administrative and
            procedural nature. Article 3 of the law contains a general reference to the fact
            that sea fisheries are to be carried out in accordance with Community
            regulations, notably those which concern conservation and management of
            resources. The same article states that further implementation provisions may be
            introduced by way of decrees.

            One such decree is the Decree No. 90-94 of 25 January 1990, as amended,
            laying down the general rules concerning fishing activities which are covered by
            Community rules on conservations and management. Secondary legislation may
            also be adopted by the relevant minister or by regional prefects in the form of
            ministerial or prefectural orders.

            The overall responsibility for fisheries policy administration rests with the
            Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Pêches,
            hereafter MAP) and in particular with its Directorate for Fisheries and
            Aquaculture (Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture, hereafter
            DPMA). The general method of organising the regional levels of state
            administration into prefectures, hierarchically dependent upon and supervised by
            the central authorities in Paris, is also used for fisheries. Thus, the regional and
            departmental prefects represent the central administration in the coastal areas
            and at sea.

            In addition to the system of prefectures, there exists for the purpose of the
            maritime administration a separate directorate, the Directorate of Maritime
            Affairs and Seafarers (Direction des Affaires Maritimes et des Gens de Mer,
            hereafter DAMGM.) hierarchically within the Ministry of Public Works,
            Transport and Equipment (Ministère des Travaux Publics, du Transport et de
            l’Equipement). The following levels of DAMGM hierarchy consist of the
            regional directorates (Directions Régionales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter
            DRAM), under whose supervision operate the interdepartmental directorates
            (Directions Interdépartementales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter DIDAM) or
            departmental (Directions Départementales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter
            DDAM) directorates. All these have been subordinated to the prefectures.
            Seventeen of the DDAMs have been allotted specific coastal units, (Unités
            Littorales des Affaires Maritimes, hereafter ULAM), the intention being to
            locate such a unit in all coastal departments.

            The minister of MAP is responsible at central level for sea fisheries control and
            fixes the overall control orientations and policy. The DPMA, interlocutor for the
            European Commission in this field, fixes the general direction of and guidelines
            for fisheries control at national level. As a part of the DPMA, the Mission du
            Contrôle des Pêches (hereafter MCP), is in charge of preparing and



EN                                                64                                               EN
            implementing these directions and guidelines, and acts as the national
            coordinator for fisheries control matters. The MCP draws up an annual fisheries
            control plan in collaboration with the DAMGM and other relevant state
            authorities involved in fisheries control, which is distributed primarily to the
            coastal prefects to be executed.

            The DRAMs carry the main responsibility for implementing and executing the
            fisheries control. Fisheries monitoring and control tasks are carried out mainly
            by the units and personnel of the Affaires Maritimes (e.g. ULAMs). However,
            other authorities also take part in these duties; the French Navy, under the
            Ministry of Defence, and different branches of the Gendarmerie, notably the
            Gendarmes Maritimes (GM). (It should be noted that ULAMs do not normally
            carry out fisheries control operations in ports where the GM have been assigned
            to such duties.) Furthermore, the Customs Service (Direction Générale des
            Douanes), under the Ministry of Finance, and, within the MAP itself, the
            veterinarian services, are also empowered to carry out certain aspects of
            fisheries control. In addition to these, the aforementioned prefectural
            administrations supervise the general police actions in this field. The different
            regional and local administrative entities engaged in fisheries control participate
            in formalised co-operation, but also have informal contacts with each other.

            Supervised and instructed by DPMA, the operational planning and co-ordination
            of monitoring at sea is undertaken by five regional centres, the Regional
            Operational Centres for Monitoring and Rescue (Centres régionaux
            opérationnels de Surveillance et de Sauvetage, hereafter CROSS). These centres
            operate under the supervision of their respective DRAM. The most important of
            these, CROSS ETEL located near Lorient, has been chosen as the FMC.

            The controls of the commercialisation of fish and fishery products are performed
            mainly by the agents of Affaires Maritimes, veterinarian services and the
            services of Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la
            Répression des Fraudes (DGCCRF). These controls occur notably prior the
            marketing of the products, to check that all aspects concerning the common
            rules for marketing have been respected. They particularly focus on the grading
            by species, size, presentation and quality. In addition, agents authorised by the
            Office national interprofessionnel des produits de la mer et de l’aquaculture
            (OFIMER) take part in the controls of interventions at the time of withdrawals.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            Article 16 of the Sea Fisheries Law enumerates the officials having been granted
            fisheries inspection powers. These reporting officers are empowered to perform
            inspections in daytime in all public places, on board vessels or in premises and
            on board transport means used in the exercise of their profession, by fishermen,
            buyers, sellers, processing industry, fish merchants, hotels, restaurants and
            auctions. The same rules apply at night if the premises in question are open to
            the public or if processing, transport or marketing activities are in progress and
            on vessels as well.




EN                                                65                                              EN
            Where there is indication of a fishery offence, the competent authorities have the
            power to search the vessel and inspect the gear, as well as to apply all necessary
            measures, such as ordering a vessel to return to port. Responsibility for the
            enforcement of transport documentation in ports and the vicinity of ports rests
            with the ULAM. However, once a lorry has left the port area, Affaires Maritimes
            personnel does not have the authority to stop vehicles; therefore these officials
            can only participate in joint operations with Customs inspectors who have the
            powers to stop any vehicle on route. Once a vehicle is stopped the Affaires
            Maritimes inspectors may continue the inspection of its documentation and
            cargo.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The system for follow-up of sea fisheries infringements in France is
            predominantly based on criminal procedure. Prosecutions are carried out by the
            public prosecutor’s department, and cases are heard by either the Tribunal de
            Police or the Tribunal Correctionnel.

            The majority of sea fisheries infringements are described and defined in the Sea
            Fisheries Law from 1852, as amended. The main provision is Article 6, which
            contains a direct reference to Community regulations and enumerates a number
            of actions which constitute infringements and are therefore punishable with a
            fine of up to € 22,500. Examples of such infringements are fishing with
            forbidden gear, fishing in forbidden zones and during restricted periods, landing
            of undersize fish, fishing without proper authorisation etc. Article 7 provides
            that a master of a vessel who obstructs the fisheries control carried out at sea by
            competent personnel can be fined a maximum of € 75,000, and Article 8 states
            that anyone else who obstructs such fisheries control may be penalised with a
            fine of up to € 15,000. Article 10 also contains a provision concerning foreign
            vessels fishing in breach of the rules of access to waters under French
            sovereignty or jurisdiction.

            Another set of rules defining infringements of fisheries rules can be found in
            Decree No. 90-94 of 25 January 1990. Article 24 is the central provision in this
            respect, and it provides that the infringements enumerated in that article may be
            sanctioned with a fine foreseen for “contraventions” of the 5th class. Examples
            of such infringements are failure to present proper documentation when
            inspected, failure to keep a logbook or providing incorrect or incomplete
            information in such logbooks, as well as late submission of logbooks or landing
            declarations.

            In this context it should be noted that French law on penal procedure
            distinguishes between “contraventions”, which according to law can result in a
            fine of maximum € 1,500 (for “contraventions” of the 5th category), and
            “délits”, which by law may give rise to a prison sentence or fines where the
            maximum is set above € 3,750. Consequently, most fisheries infringements (i.e.
            the ones regulated by the Sea Fisheries Law) are classified as “délits”.
            Infringements detailed in the Decree No. 90-94, on the other hand, are only
            “contraventions”. Perhaps the most notable exception to fisheries infringements




EN                                                66                                              EN
     being classified as “délits” is therefore logbook infringements which are
     considered “contraventions”.

     For every infraction detected a “procès-verbal” (PV) is drawn up. A PV must
     contain a description of the facts that constitute the infraction and a reference to
     the legislation which has been transgressed and the legal basis for imposing a
     sanction. Although not an obligation, to the extent possible the infringing party
     shall be heard and given the opportunity to make a statement. All PVs drafted by
     individual inspectors of Affaires Maritimes have to be approved the ‘Chef de
     service’, who screens the PVs, checks the legal qualification of the facts
     reported, annexes technical advice and background information as needed. In
     practice it is common that the inspection authorities supply all the
     documentation necessary for a successful prosecution, including the relevant
     legislation.

     The evidential value of a PV drawn up by empowered officials is high, to the
     extent that the information contained therein is considered true until the contrary
     has been proved. However, in the majority of cases, the prosecutor’s office will
     order that a complementary investigation is carried out by a criminal
     investigations officer (“police judiciaire”), normally a “gendarme maritime”, in
     order to prepare the case to be sent for prosecution.

     On the basis of the dossier submitted by the AM, or the “police judiciaire”, the
     prosecutor verifies that the conditions for initiating a procedure are fulfilled.
     First he ensures that the legal conditions are fulfilled, i.e. that all the elements
     that constitute the infraction are present and that there are no formal obstacles to
     prosecution. Secondly there will be an assessment of whether it is opportune to
     bring action, i.e. whether the infraction is significant enough and whether the
     damage to society is not so marginal that action should be avoided.

     A fast procedure is followed in cases of foreign vessels committing infractions
     in French waters. These vessels are often apprehended and taken to port, where
     they will be held until a caution has been paid. The master of the vessel is
     summoned to a hearing directly, a so called “rendez-vous judiciaire”, which is
     documented in a special PV, laying out the different counts on which the skipper
     will be charged. After this, the master will be summoned to appear in court in 10
     days for the main hearing. This can be waived and the hearing held earlier, for
     example the next day.

     Fisheries cases are, depending of the nature of the infraction, determined either
     by the Tribunal de Police or the Tribunal Correctionnel. The Tribunal de Police
     has jurisdiction to hear cases concerning “contraventions”, i.e. the less serious
     infractions, while the Tribunal Correctionnel has jurisdiction to determine cases
     concerning “délits”. The determination of the fine is entirely up to the court. The
     tribunals are supposed broadly to take into account the illicit gain from fisheries,
     but there is no tariff used for calculating the part of the fine that corresponds to
     this. It is the prosecutor who suggests the amount of the fine to the courts. He
     has to provide reasons for his suggestion and normally follows relevant case-
     law. The Court may decide formally to confiscate gear and catch which have




EN                                         67                                               EN
            been seized, or the sum of money obtained from the sale of the fish. The Court
            may also decide on the destruction of illegal gear.

            A sanction decision can also be taken in the form of a decision to compound the
            infraction (“transaction”), which does not involve the formal judgment by a
            court. It can be used for all types of infractions, but should not be used for repeat
            offences. The initiative for such a decision will come from different levels of the
            maritime administration (AM and up to the ministry), depending on the amount
            of fine to be imposed. In some cases the prosecutor may invite the AM to
            propose such a “transaction”. In all cases the proposal for a “transaction” must
            be submitted to the prosecutor for approval. If the prosecutor approves, the
            proposal is sent to the offender who may avoid prosecution by paying the sum
            within a deadline.

            The Sea Fisheries Law provides the power to withdraw a fishing licence or other
            authorisations necessary for carrying out fishing activities for up to three
            months. The authority competent to decide such a measure is the Prefect of the
            region.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The total amount of the financial resources allocated annually in the state budget
            for fisheries control has been estimated at about 10-12 M€. However, these
            figures should be taken only as rough estimates. They only cover the cost in
            personnel and material for the agents of Maritime Affairs who are involved with
            fisheries control on a full time basis.

            A more rigorous estimation should take into account the budget resources of
            four different ministries: the ministries of Defence, Finance, Equipment and
            Agriculture. Such estimation is not available.

     3.2.   Human resources

            The DAMGM is the main body involved in fisheries control and monitoring, but
            has several tasks to carry out apart from fisheries surveillance. As a result, in
            addition to administrative duties, the DAMGM at each level (DIDAM, DDAM
            and ULAM) is also involved in other maritime-related tasks, such as navigation,
            vessel and crew safety, search and rescue, crewing requirements and training,
            preventive medicine as well as recreational sailing. Fisheries control and
            monitoring activities is therefore only one among several other tasks carried out
            by the AM staff. In certain areas, and at certain times of year, these other tasks
            can occupy nearly all the available human resources.

            According to the French authorities, the number of AM personnel participating,
            constantly or occasionally, in fisheries control was 613 in 2000, 621 in 2001 and
            618 in 2002, while respectively 288, 291 and 289 of these were on a full time
            basis These last numbers include however statistical staff at the CRTS, who are
            not empowered for control purposes. The inspectors of 17 ULAM (compared


EN                                                 68                                               EN
            with 15 units in 1999) form the principal means of control of vessels in port and
            at sea. Nearly all landing ports have Affaires Maritimes offices.

            In addition, 395 officials employed by the French Navy and by Gendarmerie
            maritime participate frequently in fisheries control both at sea and on shore. In
            addition the 3,610 officials of departmental Gendarmeries, located in the 324
            units in coastal areas of continental France and DOMs, take occasionally part in
            these tasks. The Customs Services may also provide assistance in the course of
            their duties at sea and in the air. There are approximately 800 marine officials
            and approximately 170 aerial officials available to assist in fisheries control if
            required.

     3.3.   Other resources

            Affaires Maritimes has 69 vessels and boats: 7 units between 30 to 46 metres, 25
            from 8 to 17 metres and 37 light boats. The seven high seas patrol vessels are
            distributed between the English Channel/North Sea, the Atlantic coast, and the
            Mediterranean Sea. The patrol vessel IRIS, of 46 metres length, based in
            Lorient, is capable of operating in any part of the EEZ of continental France.
            The larger vessels are based in main fishing ports, i.e. Boulogne, Cherbourg,
            Lorient, St. Nazaire, La Rochelle, Bayonne in the Atlantic as well as Sète and
            Marseille in the Mediterranean. They have an endurance of 3 - 12 days. The
            French Navy, the Gendarmerie Maritime and the Customs services use different
            types of vessels, capable of covering the coastal areas as well as the high seas.

            The French Navy has six aircraft and four helicopters for public service on
            continental France, taking part in the policing of maritime fisheries by
            surveillance missions at sea. The departmental Gendarmeries maintain eight
            helicopters on the Atlantic coast and three aircraft in the Mediterranean, all of
            these occasionally utilised for fisheries control. In the Overseas Departments
            (Départements d’Outre-mer, DOM’s), four helicopters take part in sea fisheries
            monitoring. The Customs Service uses six helicopters and 13 twin-engines
            aeroplanes. While these aircrafts are primarily tasked with Customs related
            duties they can also report sightings of fishing vessels to the regionally
            competent CROSS, who may then convey this information to Affaires
            Maritimes.

     3.4.   Financial Aid Program

            During the period 2000 – 2002, the Community financial contribution allocated
            to France for fisheries control was as follows (in €) :

                    2000                  2001                2002

                  6,916,900             981,450            1,534,500

            The expenditure in 2000 represents the first stage payment for a new offshore
            patrol vessel, which should be in service in the second quarter of 2004, as well
            as the establishment of the VMS system, including the construction of the FMC
            and the equipment of fishing vessels, consisting of 150 VMS transmitters.



EN                                                69                                             EN
            Concerning 2001 and 2002 programmes, France experienced some problems in
            their execution and this resulted in delays.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control Databases

            EC logbooks are partly submitted to the local Affaires Maritimes offices, partly
            to the local PO’s or fishermen’s organisations and partly delivered to
            Gendarmes maritimes. After the initial submission, they are transmitted to one
            of the four CRTS situated at La Rochelle, Lorient, St. Malo and Boulogne. Plans
            for a fifth CRTS in Marseille for the Mediterranean fisheries have been shelved
            due to a lack of funding. The vessels less than 10 metres are only obliged to
            report their catches within a monthly production declaration to the Maritime
            Affairs which convey them also to the CRTS.

            The 43 auctions in France are inter-connected by a central computerised
            network (RIC) which allows auction sales data to be sent electronically to the
            relevant CRTS. For the larger vessels landing directly to either the owning
            company or to large buyers; the auction centre collects the sales information and
            enters it onto the RIC system. In some of these cases the owners submit sales
            data directly to the CRTS in the form of a floppy disc. The sales figures are
            converted to live weight by the software using conversion factors.

            The CRTS cross-check catches registration data against sales data and transfer
            them to the CAAM, located in St. Malo, on a daily basis. Here all individual
            reports are to be consolidated and forwarded weekly to the ministry for the
            purposes of quota management.

            The Annual Control Programme for 2002 fixed as priority the implementation of
            an information system in order to register any information concerning fisheries
            control and to exchange them between involved administrations. A database for
            recording controls is being developed by local initiative at Lorient. A database
            for all controls carried out, for co-ordination purposes, is being developed at
            CROSS Etel, but is not yet in operation.

            A pilot project on the use of electronic logbooks was launched in March 2000.
            Thirty three vessels voluntary participated in the project of which the initial
            conclusion should have been available in mid 2001.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions Control Regulation the French national authorities
            have established a satellite based monitoring system to monitor the position of
            Community fishing vessels. The Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC), situated at
            CROSS ETEL, has been operational since December 1999, and 418 fishing
            vessels have been fitted with VMS. With the aid of this system, all central
            administrations and CROSS have access to the VMS data. The functions and
            staff of the FMC are in line with the requirements of the Control Regulation, and



EN                                               70                                             EN
             France has transmitted a comprehensive list of latitude and longitude co-
             ordinates which delimit its EEZ to other Member States and the Commission.

             A part of the French fleet, with reference to the provisions of Article 3(3) of the
             Control Regulation (concerning vessels fishing only within the 12 nautical miles
             or never staying at sea for more than 24 hours), is exempted from the VMS
             obligation. However, the French authorities have not provided a list of the
             vessels exempt from VMS requirements. They have indicated that each
             “Quartier des Affaires Maritimes” decides which vessels are exempt and that the
             FMC does not have a consolidated list of these vessels. In addition, pending the
             enactment of new legislation, the French authorities cannot initiate proceedings
             regarding the failure to install VMS transponders or for tampering with the
             equipment.


     5.      INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.    Waters under French sovereignty or jurisdiction

             The French authorities have reported that the Affaires Maritimes high seas patrol
             vessels and the ULAM carried out 17,860 controls at sea in 2000, 23,813 in
             2001 and 11,055 in 2002. The number of controls undertaken at sea by the
             Gendarmerie and the Navy were not mentioned. They also reported 8,537
             infringements detected at sea in 2000, 3,481 in 2001 and 1,984 in 2002. The
             infringements detected by the Navy in 2000, by ULAM in 2001 and those cited
             by Gendarmerie in 2002 were not mentioned. The number of infringements,
             1,541, detected by ULAM in 2002 concerned both controls at sea and on land.

             From 2002, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has fixed the fisheries
             control priorities by the means of an annual control programme7. This
             programme determines the control priorities for the whole national territory and
             takes into account the specifics of each coast by implementing additional
             priorities fixed by the DRAM in their area of competence. Notably, in
             accordance with the cod recovery plan and hake emergency measures, the
             French authorities stressed as priority the observance of quota, minimum size
             and technical measures in matter of selectivity and length of passive gear within
             the framework of these both species fisheries. In addition to national priorities
             the fisheries control services were said to be focused on the strict observance of
             the trawling prohibition within the 3 miles in the Mediterranean Sea and in the
             English Channel and on the nephrops, monkfish, sole and anchovy fisheries on
             the Atlantic side and on the scallops fishery in the English Channel.

     5.2.    International waters and third country waters

             For the fishery surveillance of the albacore tuna campaign in the Atlantic Ocean,
             seven inspectors of Affaires Maritimes in 2000 and six in 2001 were
             successively deployed during cumulated patrols at sea of respectively 170 days



     7
            In application of the Prime Minister’s Circular of 8 September 2000.



EN                                                       71                                        EN
             and 130 days on board the RMH Tenace, Malabar and the trawler Cayolle. In
             addition the FPV Iris carried out a seven days patrol in 2000.

             France took part in fishery surveillance in the NEAFC regulated area during a
             37 days patrol by the means of the RMH Tenace with 3 inspectors of the
             Affaires Maritimes on board in 2000, by chartering the Icelandic vessel BJARNI
             SAEMUNSON with two teams of Affaires Maritimes inspectors, totalling 81
             days at sea and resulting in 22 inspections, in 2002.

             In the Mediterranean Sea the Affaires Maritimes were responsible for
             monitoring the actual presence in the harbour of the trawlers from Friday to
             Monday and the observance of the maximum authorised number of days at sea
             for the purse seiners fishing bluefin tuna.

     5.3.    Landings

             The French authorities reported 10,442 fisheries controls carried out on land in
             2000, 17,236 in 2001 and 5,989 in 2002. These activities concerned ULAM,
             Gendarmerie Maritime and Gendarmerie Départementale. The controls
             undertaken by Gendarmerie Départementale in 2000, and by both
             Gendarmeries in 2002, have not been reported. They also reported 778
             infringements detected on land in 2000, 2,528 in 2001 and 3,513 in 2002. The
             infringements cited by the Gendarmerie Départementale in 2000 were not
             reported. The number of infringements detected by ULAM in 2002 (1,541)
             concerned both controls at sea and on land. It should be noted that the reported
             controls on land are not specifically defined as landing controls.

             The annual control programme for 2002 underlines the need to rationalise the on
             shore control including landing, marketing and transport activities. This
             consisted mainly of verifying the landing declaration written in the EC logbook.
             It also stressed as priorities the observance of minimum size and of prior
             notification requirements for landings with regards to the bluefin tuna fishery.

             Following the announcement that the Commission would initiate a procedure
             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against France for
             non-compliance with Community requirements with regards to fish minimum
             size, notably to hake, France implemented in 20028 a specific control
             programme in order to ensure compliance with the minimum size rules.

     5.4.    Marketing and transport

             The General Directorate for Competition, Consumption and Fraud Prevention
             (DGCCRF) is reported by the French authorities to have undertaken 20,759
             control actions related to fishing products in 2001 and 31,442 in 2002. These
             actions have been taken in auctions, processing factories, supermarkets,
             fishmongers and restaurants. Nevertheless, the control carried out by this
             directorate is targeted at quality control rather than conservation rules.



     8
            DPMA Note N° 2726 of 2 August 2002.



EN                                                72                                            EN
            No information concerning fisheries control during transport is available.

     5.5.   Information on inspection and surveillance activity

            The French control authorities carried out 17,860 inspections at sea in 2000,
            23,813 in 2001 and 11,055 in 2002. However, information on the number of
            inspections carried out by GM, GD and Navy were not provided. These
            inspections resulted in the detection of 8,537 infringements in 2000, 3,431 in
            2001 and 1,984 in 2002.

            They carried out 10,442 inspections on shore in 2000, 17,236 in 2001 and 5,989
            in 2002. These inspection activities resulted in 778 infringements being found in
            2000, 2,528 in 2001 and 3,513 in 2002. In addition the services of the DGCCRF
            carried out 20,759 verification actions in 2001 and 31,442 in 2002. However,
            these controls are product quality controls rather than fisheries controls.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with the Community Regulation on serious infringements, the
            French authorities reported to the Commission to have detected for the years
            2000-2002, respectively 342, 372 and 288 serious infringements, of which 79 %
            in 2001 and 77 % in 2002 concerned vessels flying the French flag or involving
            French fishermen. These infringements covered 14 types of behaviour as
            defined in the said regulation. For each year, the two main types were failure to
            comply with the rules of minimum sizes (D6) and falsifying or failing to record
            data in logbook, landings declarations, sales notes, takeover declarations and
            transport documents or failure to keep or submit these documents (E1).
            Administrative procedures were initiated in 115 cases for 2001 and in 20 cases
            in 2002 while 254 cases in 2001 and 203 in 2002 were subjected to criminal
            proceeding. Both penal and administrative procedures were initiated in 3 cases
            in 2001. Penalties were imposed in 103 cases in 2001 and in 139 cases in 2002.

            In 2001, the average fine applied in 35 cases was € 2,483 ranging from € 30,000
            for fishing without authorisation (C1) to € 114 for landing of fishery products
            not respecting the Community rules (F1). The seizure of catches and gear was
            ordered in 53 cases, of which 15 cases for failure to comply with the rules on
            minimum size (D6). One case of licence withdrawal was notified by France.

            In 2002 the average fine was € 2,367 (based on 39 cases), ranging from € 206
            for falsifying of data required in the control documents (E1) to € 7,563 for using
            or holding on board of prohibited gear (D1). France also ordered the seizure of
            gear or catches in 84 cases and the licence withdrawal in only one case for
            failure to observe the rules on minimum sizes (D6).

            The species most concerned by infringements were hake, plaice, anglerfish, cod,
            scallops and mackerel.




EN                                               73                                              EN
     6      COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            A large number of agencies are involved in control and enforcement activities.
            Their co-operation has been organised by a formal system to ensure the co-
            ordination between all services concerned; these interministerial arrangements,
            existing already during the previous years, have been precised in a circular of
            the Prime Minister of 8 September 2000. The Annual Control Programme for
            2002 fixes as a priority the implementation of an information system in order to
            register any information concerning fisheries control and to exchange them
            between involved administrations.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            This co-operation has clearly been intensified during the last few years, owing to
            the establishment of the Mission du Contrôle des Pêches. In addition, the French
            authorities cooperate with their counterparts within the frameworks of
            monitoring the albacore campaign and of the NEAFC control scheme. A co-
            operation agreement has also been concluded between the French and the
            Norwegian authorities. Finally, the regional Affaires Maritimes authorities
            maintain operational relations with their counterparts in the adjacent Member
            States of Spain, Ireland and Belgium. Infringement files were exchanged with
            other Member States, mainly with Great Britain and Spain, for action to be
            taken. Exchange of inspectors took place in 2001 with Great Britain, particularly
            in the context of the “Shark” programme. The French authorities reported to
            have established a co-operation with Spain for monitoring bluefin tuna fishery
            by French purse seiners fishing in the waters off Balearic Islands, landing in
            Spain or providing the Spanish fattening farms with live fish.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            The French fishing industry, the fourth largest in European Union, concerns the
            Atlantic and Mediterranean coast and overseas territories as well. It is shared
            between coastal and middle waters or distant waters fleet. However, the
            significant number of vessels in the coastal fleet constitutes the major part of the
            French fishing fleet. The distant waters fleet concerns a limited number of
            vessels operating from a few harbours, only in the English Channel and the
            Atlantic coasts, and the oceanic fishing vessels operating in international and
            third countries waters.

            In line with Community Regulations, France has implemented a system for
            controlling fishing activities. However, France does not systematically transpose
            Community regulations into French legislation, and the legislation only contains
            a reference to Community law stating that Community regulations are directly
            applicable in France.

            The administrative structures provide a proper framework in order to implement
            and enforce the Common Fisheries Policy. The Ministry of Agriculture,



EN                                                74                                               EN
     particularly through its General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture
     (DPMA) has the overall responsibility in fisheries policy management and in
     fisheries program implementation. The Mission du Contrôle des Pêches, as part
     of the DPMA, has been created to act as national co-ordinator for fisheries
     control. The DPMA does however not directly carry out control and inspection
     activities through its own resources, but through various administrations, of
     which the Affaires Maritimes administration, as part of the Ministry of
     Transport, is the most important.

     In fact a large number of administrations, services and agencies are involved in
     control and enforcement activities. Their co-operation has been organised by a
     formal system to ensure the co-ordination between all services concerned. These
     previously existing ministerial arrangements have been gathered and defined in
     the Prime Minister Circular of 8 September 2000. This document does not
     however lay down detailed guidelines, but is more of statement of intent. In
     reality, the liaison between the various administrations and services is seriously
     lacking. The annual fisheries control programme established for the year 2002
     by the Ministry of Agriculture has fixed as a priority the implementation of a
     fisheries control information system shared between the all involved
     administrations, which, if put in operation, would hopefully improve co-
     ordination and information exchange.

     Control and inspection activities are only one task among many for the involved
     control services, and the number of officials potentially involved in fisheries
     control, although fairly high, does not give an accurate picture of the actual
     control capability of the French authorities. In some areas and during certain
     periods of the year, fisheries control may be given little or no priority at all.
     Commission inspectors have also reported of shortage of staff in some areas.
     Against this background it is assumed that the human resources devoted to
     fisheries control within these services are insufficient to reach the objectives set.

     The French authorities implemented, from 2000 to 2002, a withdrawal plan to
     decrease the number of fishing vessels in application of the MAGP IV rules.
     However, the overall engine power and tonnage have increased during the same
     period, since the capacity of the overseas fleet has been developed within
     specific aid programmes applicable in these regions.

     In application of the Control Regulation the French national authorities have
     established a satellite based monitoring system, with a fully operational FMC.
     France has a total of 418 fitted vessels, while a significant part of the fleet,
     according to the French authorities, are not fitted because they benefit from the
     derogations available in application of Article 3(3) of the Control Regulation.
     The list of such vessels has not been provided by the French authorities. While
     France requires all vessels falling within the legal requirements to have VMS
     fitted, the national authorities have at present no legal basis for prosecuting
     those who fail to comply with the rules. The national authorities do not have a
     control methodology in place to monitor vessels with a VMS derogation and
     limited technical and operational measures have been adopted to ensure that the
     VMS is fully operational in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of
     the Control Regulation.


EN                                          75                                               EN
     The return rates of logbooks for the larger vessels, with a length over 17 metres,
     has improved from 70 % in 1999 to nearly 100% in 2002. However, one of the
     major weaknesses in the French fisheries control methodology remains the
     verification of catch and landing declarations. The computer based network
     connecting the French auctions should in principle be able to provide the
     necessary information for verification of catch and landing declarations.
     However, the usefulness of this tool is greatly reduced by the fact that the
     obligation to fill in the landing declaration is not enforced, simply because the
     French national legislation does not specify a penalty for the non-completion of
     a landing declaration. It should be borne in mind that the obligation for all
     vessels over 10 metres to submit a landing declaration, with indication of the
     landed quantities, has been part of Community law since 1983. The lack of
     resources available for this verification task, and the lack of an adequate link
     between the statistical services of the CRTS – which do not have enforcement
     power – and the control services of Affaires Maritimes, further reinforces this
     weakness.

     The auction data are not always sent through the RIC network to the relevant
     CRTS within the required 48 hours after landing. For all types of vessels, severe
     delays exist between the landing and the receipt of logsheets by the CRTS, up to
     five months in the most extreme cases. These delays result from late
     submissions by the fishermen themselves and subsequent delays in the
     forwarding of the documents by the various intermediaries concerned. The
     French authorities estimate that at least 30 % of all sales occur completely
     outside of the auction system. It should also be noted that the sales information
     from large vessels landing to either the owning company or to a large buyer is
     normally sent on a monthly basis, not within 48 hours as required. Commission
     inspectors have observed that this type of data can sometimes be delayed by up
     to three months.

     The quality of controls carried out at sea varies from unit to unit. Commission
     inspectors have observed very high standards of control, where serious offences
     have been successfully detected. There are also examples of control of poor
     standard, where obvious offences have not been detected. The quality of landing
     controls varies considerably from port to port. The most thorough inspections
     take place in Lorient, whereas in many other ports Commission inspectors have
     observed inspections which can only be described as superficial. Controls on
     transports arriving at French auction centres from other Member States are not
     given priority by Affaires Maritimes officials, as they are of the opinion that
     these consignments should have been controlled by the Member State where the
     landing took place.

     The information on control activities carried out by the French authorities during
     the period 2000 – 2002, transmitted to the Commission in the context of annual
     reports, is mostly cumulated data concerning the entire inspection resources
     deployed. This information does not show to what extent these activities were
     devoted to specific fields, such as professional or recreational fisheries, cod and
     hake recovery plans, observance of fish minimum size, use of illegal gear,
     illegal fishery in restricted areas, or catches and landings verification. This
     observation applies to inspection activities carried out in French, international


EN                                         76                                              EN
     and third country waters, as well as regards landings, marketing, processing and
     transport.

     The French authorities appear to address priority to inspections carried out in
     auctions and in commercial outlets. Inspections of landings, at the point of
     discharge, receive considerably less attention, and it has been frequently
     observed by Commission inspectors that the control of landing is lacking both in
     quantitative and qualitative terms. The imbalance between the control of
     commercialisation and the landing controls has been highlighted notably in
     respect of undersize fish. The Commission is of the opinion that as long as the
     landings of fish are not adequately controlled, the practice of landing undersize
     fish is likely to persist.

     This assessment, that the fisheries control carried out in France is not of an
     optimal standard, appears to be confirmed by the rather modest number of
     infringements detected. For the period 2000-2002, respectively 342, 372 and
     288 serious infringements were reported by the French authorities. Compared to
     the size of the fleet involved, and against the background of observations made
     by Commission inspectors, these numbers are low. The average fine, which in
     2002 was € 2,367, is higher than the European average, but it should be borne in
     mind that this average was calculated on the basis of only 39 cases where
     penalties were imposed. Against that background the Commission cannot be
     convinced that the French system for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is
     sufficiently efficient or deterrent.

     The lack of human resources devoted to fisheries control statistics and of co-
     operation between various administrations, the fact that the obligation to submit
     landing declarations is not systematically enforced, as well as the serious delays
     in the entry of data and the forwarding of these to the DPMA, means that
     landing declarations are not effectively verified by the French authorities. This
     also puts into question the capability in such situation to ensure an appropriate
     quota management. Indeed, the French annual report on fisheries for 2001,
     dealing with the conservation and management of resources, makes no mention
     whatsoever of quota management. This situation, since it concerns the major
     part of French landings, may have contributed to the overfishing of regulated
     species by Member States noticed by scientific assessments.

     For the reasons outlined above, the enforcement of the Common Fisheries
     Policy in France cannot be considered to be on a satisfactory level.




EN                                        77                                              EN
                                             GERMANY

     1.      SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

             The activities of the German fleet are quite diverse, a fact which can be partially
             attributed to the historical geography of the country. There are a large number of
             smaller vessels situated in the Baltic ports, the fishing patterns of which are
             restricted by the time they can spend at sea and the availability of target species.
             Only a few vessels remain of the former deep-sea fleet traditionally based in
             Rostock. On the North Sea coast there has been more diversification by the fleet
             but the number of larger vessels operating out of these ports has also declined.

     1.1.    Fleet

             In the Baltic, fisheries are targeted specifically at cod, sprat and herring. In the
             North Sea and Northern Atlantic there are demersal fisheries for whitefish in
             general. Pelagic fisheries in the Northern Atlantic are mainly targeted at redfish,
             mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting and herring.

             For the period 2000 to 2002 German fleet capacity (according to MAGP IV
             assessment) decreased from 2,235 vessels with a total of 160,352 kW and
             tonnage of 68,586 GT (ICT69 compliant) to 2,143 vessels with 156,850 kW and
             tonnage of 66,719 GT. This represented an overall decrease of 4% in the number
             of vessels, 2.7% for total tonnage and 2.2% for fleet engine power.

             In 2002 the largest segments in terms of the number of vessels were 4C1 which
             comprised 79% of the fleet, the North Sea beam trawler fleet 4C5 accounting for
             14% of the vessels and the large pelagic (4C6) and demersal freezer trawlers
             (C47) a mere 0.6%. But in terms of kW, the most important categories were 4C5
             with 31% of the fleet’s engine power, the deep sea vessels of 4C6 and 4C7 with
             23% and the small vessels of 4C1 accounted for 20%.

     1.2.    Fishing opportunities

             Besides fishing opportunities available in EU waters, the German fleet also
             benefits from agreements concluded by the Commission with third countries.
             The deep-sea pelagic and demersal fleets operate extensively in NEAFC regions
             1, 2 and 3. The German fleet has access to significant quantities of the available
             EU TAC’s for cod, saithe, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, sprat and
             herring in the various divisions of ICES I, II and III, plus Greenland halibut and
             redfish in Greenland waters.

             In 2001 the initial global quota for the German fleet was 304,644 tonnes9. The
             most important commercial species being cod (29,859 tonnes), mackerel
             (31,130 tonnes), horse mackerel (19,430 tonnes), blue whiting (15,630 tonnes),


     9
            Figure excludes 10,178 pieces of salmon in ICES III b-d.



EN                                                       78                                         EN
            herring (92,551 tonnes), sprat (19,948 tonnes), saithe (21,612 tonnes) and
            redfish (49,125 tonnes). On average the German fleet took in excess of 90% of
            the individual quotas allocated to them. These figures accounted for 89% of the
            total national TAC.

            The German authorities manage the capacity and the activities of the fleet by
            means of legal and administrative instruments, consisting mainly of vessel
            licences, special fishing permits and effort restrictions to various fleet segments.

            All registered German fishing vessels, irrespective of length, are required to be
            licensed. Licences are of two types, firstly the Fanglizenz which permits a vessel
            to fish for non-quota species, and secondly when a vessel wants to target
            regulated resources, i.e. quota species, it is required to hold a special fishing
            permit – a Fangerlaubnis. In addition to these licence types the national
            administration also uses special access permits, Zugangslizenzen, for waters of
            third countries and regional fisheries organisations and special permits, spezielle
            Fangerlaubnisse, for certain fisheries, e.g. Shetland box, deep-sea fisheries, etc.
            The Baltic Sea access regime is controlled by establishing a yearly base list,
            which in itself constitutes a form of licensing restriction for the vessels involved.

            General authorisations to fish are published in the federal official journal
            (Bundesanzeiger) as Bekanntmachungen. The quota restrictions applicable to
            vessels of certain categories are detailed in this publication.

            In general the Federal State regulates quotas by species, by fishing zone, by days
            at sea and by vessel type. However, there may be additional criteria on the
            allocation of the national TAC’s. Some quotas are available to anyone entitled to
            fish and others are split between the different fleet segments. For deep-sea
            vessels over 500 GRT the quotas are allocated to individual fishing companies.
            For deep-sea vessels under 500 GRT and for coastal fisheries there are different
            management systems. For some species there are catch limitations per week or
            per month. Quotas can also be allocated to individual fishing companies, as in
            the case of North Sea saithe, and to Producer Organisations (Erzeuger
            Organisationen), for example cod, which in turn divide them amongst their
            members.

            In addition to their use for quota management, the special fishing permits have
            been used for the allocation of fishing effort to the vessels assigned to the two
            MAGP IV segments of 4C4 and 4C6.

            Polyvalent fishing does occur occasionally, and in these cases the main method
            of fishing is used to allocate a vessel to a particular segment.

     1.3.   National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            As explained more in detail in 2.1 below, the tasks of control are distributed
            either to the federal level or to the individual German States (Länder). The
            federal authorities have to ensure the consistency of national legislation and also
            have the overall responsibility for quota and effort management. The Federal
            Office of Agriculture and Food (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und



EN                                                 79                                               EN
              Ernährung, the BLE), which operates under the supervision of the Federal
              Ministry of Consumer Protection and Agriculture (Bundesministerium für
              Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft – the Ministry), is the ‘lead’
              authority in carrying out monitoring and control and also acts as the competent
              authority in licensing matters and maintains the national fishing fleet register.

              The collection of EC logbooks, sales-notes and landing declarations is carried
              out mainly by the Länder authorities. After some administrative checks the
              documents are then sent to BLE headquarters in Hamburg for processing into
              the centralised databases. There is an exception for Baltic landings in the ports
              of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where data are entered into the database which
              already exists in Rostock. In Hamburg the catch and effort data are entered into
              the national catch registration system by BLE officials, who also perform cross-
              checks on the source documents. The use of VMS data is also introduced as a
              control tool for verification. Germany has introduced a general catch reporting
              requirement for vessels under 10 metres and these vessels are required to report
              monthly on details on catches, prices paid and the area of capture.

              The overall responsible authority for control of quota uptake remains with BLE.
              However, the PO’s have some responsibilities for catch restrictions, and they are
              expected to adopt suitable internal management measures and to discipline
              members violating the rules. PO’s are liable to a monetary fine for violation of
              the quotas allocated to them by BLE. Alternatively BLE can impose a quota
              penalty by deducting the amount over-fished from the quota for the following
              year.

              Germany also adopted the following requirements for control purposes:

              −    Prior notification from vessels landing catches from the Baltic in German
                   ports or in third country ports for fishing trips longer than 24 hours.

              −    48 hours pre-notification is required for vessels landing frozen fish in
                   German ports.

              −    Details of the buyer, vehicle registration (if catch is to be transported) and
                   the vessels internal EU number must be recorded in the EC Logbook.

              With regard to the technical measurement of engine power and vessel tonnage,
              there are two German institutions which conduct inspections. These are the
              Federal Office of Sea Navigation and Hydrography (Bundesamt für
              Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie – BSH) and Germanischer Lloyd (GL). These
              organisations provide the data to BLE which form the basis of the fleet register.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under German sovereignty and jurisdiction

              The tasks of the German administration involve the control of some 3,661 km of
              coastline and 40,100 km² of the national EEZ in both the North Sea and the
              Baltic Sea area. As detailed in section 1.1. above, there is a large fleet to be
              controlled and administered – 2,143 vessels in 2002.


EN                                                 80                                               EN
              The federal administration is generally responsible for control outside of the
              national 12 nautical miles limit. Inside of the 12 nautical miles limit this control
              is the responsibility of the Länder. The Federal State has to ensure surveillance
              consistency of the Länder (Schleswig-Holstein, Niedersachsen, Hamburg,
              Bremen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) which are confined within the 12 mile
              limit. However, the Federal State has been authorised by administrative
              agreements with the Länder to operate inside the 12 mile zone as well.

              The majority of the smaller fishing vessels operate with static gear near the
              coasts of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. A large part of the cutter fleet is
              engaged in beam-trawl fisheries for flatfish, shrimps and mussels.

              Other Member States as well as third country vessels carry out fishing activity in
              the German EEZ. In the Baltic Sea area these comprise mainly Danish trawlers
              while the majority of foreign vessels operating in the North Sea area are Dutch,
              Danish, UK and Belgian.

     1.4.2.   International waters

              In 2002 there were 12 deep sea vessels operating in international and third
              country waters – notably in NAFO, NEAFC, Greenland, Norway, Svalbard and
              Mauritania. These vessels often discharge catches in ports in the Netherlands,
              the Faeroe Islands, Iceland and, when fishing off the west coast of Africa, in
              Gran Canaria.

     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              Germany has authorised 70 ports where catches may be landed, 27 of these on
              the North Sea coast and 43 in the Baltic Sea area. The principal landing ports on
              the North Sea coast are Bremerhaven, Cuxhaven, Büsum and Brake and on the
              Baltic coast Kiel, Burgstaaken, Heiligenhafen, Maasholm, Wismar,
              Warnemünde, Sassnitz, Lauterbach and Freest. Third country vessels are only
              allowed to discharge in the ports of Hamburg, Cuxhaven, Bremerhaven,
              Sassnitz, Rostock, Kiel and Büsum.

              In the period 2000 – 2002 there was stability in the total quantity of fish landed
              by German vessels but at the same time there was a 29% decrease in the value
              of landings. On average, 27% of the total tonnage of fish caught by the German
              fleet was landed in foreign ports. There is no directed industrial fishing by
              German vessels.

              The main target species for the German fleet are herring, mackerel, horse
              mackerel, saithe, redfish, sprat, cod, sole, plaice, blue whiting and shrimps. A
              consideration when examining figures for landings is the fact that a large
              number of vessels are German registered but owned by nationals from other
              Member States, notably by Dutch interests. These ‘flag’ vessels are concentrated
              in the deep-sea pelagic and demersal and North Sea beam-trawl segments and
              land significant quantities outside Germany.




EN                                                  81                                               EN
               The bulk of fish processed in Germany is imported from other countries. In
               2001 from Denmark – 171,175 tonnes, the Netherlands – 50,267 tonnes,
               Norway – 91,413 tonnes, Russia – 74,734 tonnes, China – 74,261 tonnes and
               Iceland – 27,084 tonnes. The import and overland transport of fish to German
               processors is essential for their survival.

               There is very little in the way of direct landings from other Member State
               vessels into the German auction system. If fish does appear on the auctions it is
               invariably ‘second sale’ consignments and is particularly sourced from Iceland
               and arrives in refrigerated containers.

     1.4.4.    Marketing, processing and transport

               The fish processing industry in Germany is concentrated in the coastal Länder,
               namely Schleswig-Holstein, Niedersachsen, Bremen and Mecklenburg-
               Vorpommern. It is a very prominent industry, which has been able to maintain
               its levels of production and capacity despite a great dependence on overland
               transported fish from other Member States and fish imported from third
               countries. A large percentage of the base product is for secondary processing.
               There are approximately 10310 large companies involved with processing
               fisheries products. The processing industry contributes significantly to the
               distribution of fisheries products in both Germany and neighbouring countries.

               Large auctions exist only in the ports of Cuxhaven and Bremerhaven. Fish
               landed by German vessels is however frequently transported into other Member
               States, especially the Netherlands, for auctioning. A considerable number of
               landings by German vessels take place abroad, mainly in the Netherlands,
               Denmark, Iceland, the Faeroe Islands and in Gran Canaria.

               Regarding the marketing of fish both BLE and the Länder are responsible for
               monitoring compliance with the EC marketing Regulations. Matters concerning
               intervention are the sole responsibility of BLE. The Länder authorities check
               minimum fish sizes while the Länder veterinarian services focus on quality and
               hygiene. In Germany there are 23 Producer Organisations and approximately
               95% of registered vessels belong to these groups. They operate within
               guidelines concerning EC intervention measures for fisheries products.

               The responsibility for control of transport documentation lies with the
               competent authorities in the Länder. Despite the fact that large quantities of fish
               are overlanded to supply the processing industry there is no programme of
               controls to verify the sources of the product.




     10
              Figures from DG Fisheries report on principle firms in the fisheries and aquaculture products
              industry 2001.



EN                                                       82                                                   EN
     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The federal structure of Germany is reflected in the allocation of control
            competencies to the federal level or to the individual German Länder. The main
            statute of German fisheries legislation is the federal law Seefischereigesetz
            (hereafter SFG) of 12 July 1984, last amended in 2002. Amongst other matters,
            it defines the tasks and authorities of the federal government and the Länder
            with respect to fisheries control. The Federal State had to ensure the consistency
            of the legislation, and it also has overall responsibility for management of the
            fleet and its fishing opportunities.

            The Federal government (Bundesregierung) is responsible for general legislative
            policy. Article 10 of SFG gives the Länder the power to adopt their own
            fisheries legislation, on condition that the issues have not been regulated on
            federal level, or by extension on the EU level, and in so far as the federal
            government does not use its legislative power foreseen under Article 2 of SFG.
            Moreover, the Länder can provide for additional measures, which have to be
            consistent with federal and EC legislation.

            The federal tasks of fisheries control have been delegated to the Federal Office
            of Agriculture and Food, the BLE, which has its headquarters in Hamburg.
            Furthermore, the Ministry has concluded administrative agreements on
            participation in fisheries control with the Federal Ministry of Finance
            (Bundesministerium der Finanzen) – namely the customs authorities (Zoll), as
            well as with the Federal Ministry of the Interior (Bundesministerium des
            Inneren) – namely the Federal border guard (Bundesgrenzschutz, BGS). Zoll
            may undertake fisheries inspections and visual controls at sea, while the powers
            of BGS are restricted to visual controls. In cases where Zoll or BGS observe
            infringements the details are forwarded to the BLE for investigation and follow-
            up.

            Within all waters of the German EEZ the federal administration is generally
            responsible for the surveillance, monitoring and control of fisheries outside the
            limit of 12 nautical miles. The tasks of monitoring and control of fishing
            activities inside the 12 mile limit and in the ports belong primarily to the
            authorities in the coastal Länder (Schleswig-Holstein, Niedersachsen/Bremen
            and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). However, according to Article 6 of SFG, the
            federal Ministry is entitled to conclude administrative agreements with the
            Länder to the effect that the BLE can be active in coastal waters and the Länder
            beyond the 12 mile zone. In practice these kinds of agreements have been
            concluded between the BLE and the authorities of the coastal Länder, so that
            BLE has been entrusted fisheries inspection competencies in the coastal sea
            area.

            Pursuant to the same article, also the Länder can be authorised to operate and to
            carry out control activity outside the 12 mile limit. This opportunity has
            however so far not been taken up by the coastal Länder due to the small size of
            their inspection vessels.



EN                                               83                                              EN
            The fleet register is maintained by the BLE which, as explained in 1.3. above,
            receives all technical measurements of vessels from BSH and GL.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            As far as inspection and investigation powers are concerned, Article 6 of SFG
            provides that the control officials (from both BLE and Zoll) have the same rights
            and obligations concerning minor offences as police officials under the German
            law of misdemeanours (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten, OWiG). Within a
            specific procedure (Bußgeldverfahren, see below) they are entitled to undertake
            seizures, searches and investigations pursuant to those provisions of the Code of
            Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO) pertaining to the officials
            assisting the public prosecutors. Where there is an indication of an offence, they
            have the powers especially to search and seize the vessel and gear as well as to
            apply all other necessary measures, such as ordering a vessel to enter a port.

            Officials from the BGS have no powers to enter vessels for fisheries control
            purposes. If such officials suspect that an infringement has been committed, they
            have to contact BLE for further measures to be taken.

            The inspection competencies on land include investigation of logbooks and
            landing declarations. Inspectors can visit all premises of all the enterprises
            involved in landing, selling and trading fisheries products. The control officials
            are entitled to board vessels as well as to enter offices, real estate and business
            premises. Outside business hours and as regards premises used at the same time
            also for dwelling purposes, these competencies are to be utilised only to prevent
            imminent dangers for public order and safety.

            Furthermore, the Seefischereiverordnung (Article 3) contains further provisions
            detailing the obligations of masters of fishing vessels and the corresponding
            powers of inspectors. It provides for instance that inspectors shall have access to
            all relevant documentation and that the master of the vessel is obliged to co-
            operate with inspection officers.

            Also the legislation enacted by the Länder contains similar provisions on
            inspection and investigation powers, specific for the inspection personnel
            employed by the different Länder administrations.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The system in place in Germany for follow-up of fisheries infringements is
            based on sanction decisions being taken by the administrative authority
            responsible for control and enforcement, be it on federal level or on the level of
            the   Länder.      Infringements    are    considered      as    misdemeanours,
            “Ordnungswidrigkeiten”

            As far as sanctioning of fisheries infringements is concerned, the SFG contains
            the main provision (Article 9) listing what is to be considered an infringement of
            the fisheries rules. This is an open list so, by way of delegation in accordance
            with the same article, the Ministry can lay down further rules in secondary



EN                                                84                                              EN
     legislation defining infringements of fisheries rules. Article 9 (1), fifth
     paragraph, contains a direct reference to the CFP and provides that
     infringements of the CFP shall be sanctioned in so far as measures have been
     taken to regulate these issues in accordance with Article 9 (4). This has been
     done, e.g. in the Seefischerei-Bußgeldverordnung (BGV) and in the
     Seefischereiverordnung (SeefiVo). For instance the BGV contains a thorough
     and detailed list of acts which constitute infringements of the CFP and which
     therefore shall be sanctioned.

     All the Länder have their own provisions on infringements and their
     sanctioning. For example Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has laid down these rules
     in its own central fisheries act, the Fischereigesetz für das Land Mecklenburg-
     Vorpommern (Article 33), and in the regulation of coastal fisheries, the
     Küstenfischereiverordnung. The other Länder have similar provisions in their
     respective legislations.

     Infringements of the fisheries rules are defined as “Ordnungswidrigkeiten”, and
     fisheries inspectors have fairly wide ranging investigative powers in accordance
     with the Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (OWiG). Generally speaking it is the
     OWiG which regulates the investigation and sanctioning procedure.

     Inspections carried out by BLE inspectors and inspectors from the Länder are
     normally documented in an inspection report. A discovered infringement is also
     recorded on the inspection report. The inspection reports are presented to the
     master of the vessel, and the master may sign the form, although he is not
     obliged to do so. The master of the vessel receives a copy of the inspection
     report. A signature by the master does not have any legal effect, apart from
     serving as a verification that the master was indeed on board the fishing vessel.

     The inspection report establishing an infringement is sent to headquarters, which
     is BLE Hamburg for infringements discovered by BLE-inspectors, for further
     investigation and for an eventual sanctioning decision. A similar procedure is
     used in the Länder, where the inspectors send their reports to the regional
     headquarters. The prosecution authorities are not involved in the sanctioning of
     fisheries infringements in the first instance. It is only at the stage of appeal
     where the prosecution authorities become involved.

     The maximum fine according to the federal legislation is € 76,600 (Article 9 (2)
     SFG). This applies to infringements which have been committed with intention,
     and OWiG provides that the maximum for a violation committed with
     negligence (culpa) shall be half of the statutory maximum, i.e. € 38,300. The
     level shall be set according to the seriousness of the infringement, but also the
     economic circumstances of the offender shall be taken into account. OWiG also
     expressly states that the size of the fine shall exceed any economic benefit that
     the offender has from the infringement. If such economic benefit exceeds the
     maximum statutory fine, the maximum does not apply and the fine can be
     established at a higher level. If there are several offences, the fines can be
     accumulated.




EN                                        85                                             EN
            The different Länder have their own legislative acts defining infringements and
            sanctions. The maximum fines differ from the maximum level set by federal
            legislation. For instance, the maximum fine in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is €
            10,000 and in Schleswig-Holstein € 25,500. The fines are set by the authority
            imposing the sanction, i.e. BLE on federal level and the Länder-administrations.
            Although there are no official guidelines, except in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
            internal tariffs appear to be used both at federal and at Länder level.

            Warnings can be used for minor offences, and they can be verbal or written.
            Verbal warnings are documented on the inspection report. Together with the
            written warning the authorities have the possibility to impose an administrative
            penalty fee, which can range between € 5 and 35.

            Infringements detected by BLE are seldom followed up with a written warning,
            while written warnings, with or without a fee, are used more frequently by the
            Länder. In practice, written warnings with or without fees seem to be used
            mainly for infringements of the rules concerning use of logbooks, e.g. failure to
            have the logbook completed at arrival in port, exceeding the 20 % difference
            between the figures in the logbook and the landing declaration or recording a
            wrong catch composition in the logbook.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            In the period 2000 to 2002 the costs of control to the BLE were between €8.9
            million and €9.6 million per year. In 2000 an additional amount of €6.7 million
            was paid for the construction of the new FPV ‘Seeadler’. No data is available for
            the expenditure at the Länder level.

     3.2.   Human resources

            The BLE employs a total of 20 inspectors who are solely involved with seagoing
            duties. There are a further 4 shore based BLE inspectors in Hamburg and 30
            more employed by the Länder. Some of these shore based inspectors are also
            utilised for seagoing missions.

            Additionally, officers of the veterinary service and Zoll could be considered
            inspectors within the scope of their designated competencies.

     3.3.   Other resources

            Nationally 42 patrol vessels are allocated for inspections at sea. Of these 23 are
            operated by the various federal authorities, (BGS 8, BLE 3, and Zoll 12) of
            which 3 operate offshore. The remaining 19 patrol vessels operate under
            direction of the various Länder within the 12 nautical mile limit.

            Under an administrative agreement between the Ministry and the Federal
            Ministry of Finance, the 12 Zoll vessels are employed in fisheries control for
            approximately 30% of their operational time at sea. Customs vessels are also


EN                                               86                                              EN
            involved on a support basis in the 3 mile zone to monitor the ban on trawl
            fishing in the waters of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Customs officials are
            trained by the BLE to make inspections and also to initiate sanctioning
            procedures against offenders.

            Federal border guard vessels are used for fisheries patrol under inter-
            departmental agreements. These vessels do not undertake physical inspections
            but are responsible for monitoring the external borders of the German fisheries
            zone and patrol certain ‘protected’ areas – i.e. closed spawning grounds and
            environmentally protected areas in the Baltic. Offences are reported to the BLE
            for follow-up.

            In collaboration with the Commission and other Member States, vessels from
            the BLE undertake patrols in NEAFC waters.

            Aircraft are not normally used for fisheries surveillance. However, in 2001
            aircraft were used to patrol the ‘closed area’ for cod in the North Sea.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            In the period reviewed the financial contribution from the Commission to
            Germany was as follows (in€):

                            2000               2001               2002

                        1.23 million       0.12 million       0.42 million

            In the main expenditure was for the establishment of the national FMC and the
            installation and upgrading of the VMS system. There was also the purchase and
            modernisation of fishery patrol vessels and training for inspection personnel.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            Catch registration in Germany is a joint responsibility of the federal authorities
            and the Länder. The collection of EC logbooks, landing declarations and sales-
            notes is carried out by the Länder authorities. The information is then
            transmitted to BLE headquarters in Hamburg where the centralised database is
            located. All catch and effort data are entered into the system in Hamburg by
            BLE officials, who will also cross-check the catch registration documents. The
            site for the database for the storage of catch registration is in Frankfurt am Main
            and the system used is called FIQU (Fischerei Fang Quoten
            Überwachungsprogramm).

            Between 95 and 100% of fishing logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes
            are submitted to the various control authorities. Germany has introduced catch
            reporting obligations for vessels less than 10 metres which are required to report
            monthly the details of catches, prices paid and the area of capture.




EN                                                87                                              EN
             In order to verify the accuracy of data from the fishermen, the BLE has
             compiled an additional database where information is sourced solely from
             commercial sales data. At the end of the year these data are compared with the
             information originating from control documentation. The BLE claims that the
             information originating from the catchers and the buyers shows a very high level
             of similarity.

             The use of VMS data has been introduced as a control tool for making cross
             checks with EC logbooks.

             The information concerning fishing effort of German vessels operating in
             Western Waters and in the Baltic is calculated by BLE on an hourly basis from
             the data entered in EC logbooks. Only two MAGP IV segments of the fleet (4C4
             and 4C6) are concerned with effort limitation.

     4.2.    VMS

             In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the German authorities
             have established a satellite based monitoring system to monitor the positions of
             Community vessels. The FMC in Hamburg (at BLE headquarters) receives
             VMS information from 91 German fishing vessels. The large federal inspection
             vessels have client stations and therefore have access to this data when at sea.

             Exchange of VMS data with Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, the UK, France,
             Belgium, Ireland, Spain and Sweden takes place automatically. The same
             applies to data exchange with Norway and the NEAFC secretariat. Remote
             access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing the data
             recorded by the Hamburg FMC has been provided.


     5.      INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.    Waters under German sovereignty or jurisdiction

             German waters (exclusively within ICES IVb and IIIc,d) are fished by vessels
             from many Member States. During the period 2000 – 2003 control priority was
             given to surveillance of the general EEZ (in particular the North Sea Plaice Box
             and protected areas in the Baltic), the national 12 and 3 mile limits in regard to
             access and technical measures and enforcement of the emergency measures
             introduced during 2001 concerning cod in the North Sea.

             In the period 2000 – 2002 a total of 9,045 sea-days were spent by all designated
             FPV’s on surveillance. A total of 14,561 inspections were undertaken and 829
             infringements were detected11.

             The German authorities define a sea inspection as one where an actual physical
             boarding of a fishing vessel takes place. A boarding routinely encompasses
             several control activities, such as inspection of the vessel, a check on vessel


     11
            Based on data supplied in Annual Control Reports 2000, 2001 and 2002.



EN                                                     88                                         EN
            registration documents, scrutiny of the EC logbook, the catch on board and of
            the gear. Two of the three large patrol vessels operated by BLE are normally
            operational in the North Sea and the third in the Baltic. All have the capability to
            carry out missions with total duration of up to six weeks. A typical patrol lasts
            between 10 and 12 days.

            For sea inspection within German territorial waters (12 miles zone) the Länder
            provide 16 patrol vessels. Of these 12 are located in the Baltic Sea area while 4
            patrol vessels operate in the North Sea. Additional small motorboats (less than
            10 m in length) are used to patrol shallow coastal waters.

            In addition to the inspections by BLE and the Länder, the Zoll authorities also
            perform inspections with their patrol boats.

            Aerial surveillance took place in 2001, but solely for control of the closed areas
            for cod in the North Sea.

     5.2.   International waters and third country waters

            The monitoring and surveillance of German fisheries in international waters is
            the responsibility of the BLE. Under agreements with the Commission,
            Germany is obliged to provide an FPV for surveillance in NEAFC waters (ICES
            II, VIII, XII and XIV). Because of the high sea nature of these patrols they are
            undertaken by the BLE inspection vessels ‘Seeadler’, ‘Seefalke’ and
            ‘Meerkatze’. During 2000 – 2002 the vessels spent a total of 107 days
            undertaking controls in NEAFC during which they made 59 inspections.

     5.3.   Landings

            The Federal Republic employs a staff of 34 shore based inspectors. A part of the
            tasks of these officials is to monitor landings and the compliance with common
            marketing standards.

            There are no global figures available for shore based controls in Germany but in
            the area of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern a total of 7,229 port inspections were
            recorded during the reference period.

            The small coastal fleet carries out the largest number of landings and is targeted
            for landing controls by the Länder fisheries authorities. Vessels under 10m long
            are required to submit monthly statistics of their catches. The inspection of
            landings by the German freezer fleet is a federal obligation and is carried out by
            the BLE. These landings are given a high priority for control and of the 53
            discharges which took place 49 were controlled. Additionally the BLE also
            undertakes administrative checks on the companies who own the freezer
            trawlers.

            Germany also operates a number of additional control measures which increase
            the efficiency of controls of landings. These involve advance notice of landings
            in the Baltic when vessels are at sea for more than 24 hours. Other than the
            target to inspect 25% landings of cod in the Baltic ports there is no official BLE
            programme for the control of landings. However, some Länder authorities have


EN                                                89                                               EN
            established independent control regimes which include inspection targets in the
            ports.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            BLE-Hamburg, assisted by local veterinary and customs offices, checks
            compliance with health and marketing standards for fishery products imported
            from outside the Community, whilst the competent Länder offices verify that
            fresh fish landed in Germany complies with EC marketing standards.

            With respect to intervention payments, the BLE in Hamburg checks the relevant
            documentation and undertakes audits of the Producer Organisations concerned.
            The PO’s play an important part in the landing and marketing of catches. These
            functions are linked to the management of allocated quotas and their marketing
            strategies.

            The responsibility for control of transport documentation lies mainly with the
            authorities in the Länder. However, only the police have to power to stop a
            vehicle when it is in transit. The Commission has noted that there is no
            programme of controls to check transport documentation. Only one case of a
            serious infringement concerning processing, marketing and transport of fisheries
            products was reported in the period 2000 to 2002. In the annual control reports
            submitted, it was explained that priority is given to maritime and quayside
            checks and that the transport documentation requirements of the Control
            Regulation do not reflect the reality of the situation in the Member States and
            are therefore very difficult to enforce. However Zoll has been asked to give a
            higher priority to controls of transport documentation.

            The Zoll inspectors based on the borders undertake checks on fishery products
            which are imported into the country and in the period 2000 to 2003 made 116
            controls on a total of nearly 1,700 tonnes of fish.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports for 2000 to 2002 as submitted to the
            Commission, surveillance and inspection activities both ashore and at sea were
            carried out by the various competent authorities as outlined in section 2.1.
            above.

            During the reference period the FPVs of all designated authorities spent a total
            of 9,045 days on patrol at sea. Some 5,308 maritime controls were made in
            2000, 4,865 in 2001 and 4,388 in 2002. Global figures for controls in the ports
            are not available. In regard to infringements, 826 were detected in 2000, 416 in
            2001 and 365 in 2002. The German authorities reported that between 2000 and
            2002 some 340 “serious infringements” were detected and subsequently
            sanctioned.

            Other than for aerial surveillance of the “closed area” for cod in the North Sea,
            aircraft were not used for fisheries control purposes.




EN                                               90                                             EN
     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Council Regulations the German authorities reported 340
            serious infringements in the reference period. These involved 11 different
            categories of illegal activity.

            Specifically for 2002 there were 118 serious infringements reported, which
            involved 8 different types of offences. All cases concerned vessels flying the
            German flag or involved German fishermen. The majority – 56, concerned the
            falsification of data required in control documents (E1). All cases were subject
            to administrative follow-up and penalties were imposed in 101 cases. The
            average fine was € 820 and ranged from € 83 for falsifying, deleting or
            concealing the identification marks of the vessel (C3) to € 3,962 for fishing
            without holding an authorisation (C1). No withdrawals of vessel licences were
            reported.


     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            Because of the complex organisational structure of fisheries control in Germany,
            account has to be taken of the fact that both at the federal and the Länder levels
            there are various public authorities involved in monitoring and enforcement
            action. Regular and institutionalised contact and meetings take place between
            the various authorities on the co-operation and co-ordination of their control
            activities.

            There are agreements for co-operation between the BLE, the customs service
            and the federal border police in the deployment of their inspection vessels.
            Additionally, veterinary officers are involved with the marketing of fishery
            products and personnel from BSH and GL are concerned with the technical
            inspection of fishing vessels.

            The Ministry also co-operates with the German PO’s by devolving managerial
            responsibilities for fishing opportunities to these groups.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            A regular exchange of information takes place with neighbouring Member
            States. Enforcement information is exchanged with the relevant Swedish,
            Danish and Dutch authorities. An exchange of inspectors has taken place with
            the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Poland. Since 2000 a joint
            inspection programme has also been carried out in the Baltic Sea with
            neighbouring Member States. Information exchanged has included details on the
            verification of catches and sales information. An agreement with Norway was
            concluded in 2000 concerning the mutual exchange of catch and landing
            documentation as well as information about infringements. In 2002 BLE
            inspectors visited Poland as part of an exchange programme.




EN                                                91                                             EN
          Both the Norwegian and Faeroese authorities are provided with vessel position
          reports and the entry and exit details when German vessels operate in their
          waters.

          Because of the involvement of their vessels, the BLE participates in control
          discussions with the European Commission, IBSFC, NEAFC and NAFO. In co-
          operation with the Commission, BLE provides FPVs for patrol duties in the
          Baltic and NEAFC zones.


     7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

          As a whole, the German control system appears to adequately ensure the overall
          efficiency prescribed in the Control Regulation. An intricate, but nevertheless
          effective legal and administrative framework is in place to cover the general
          requirements of the CFP. Monitoring, inspection and surveillance activities are
          carried out in a relatively satisfactory manner.

          The means placed at the disposal of the various German authorities (both at
          Federal and Länder level) seem in general sufficient for the fulfilment of the
          obligations referred to in the Control Regulation. The control of landings is first
          and foremost the responsibility of the Länder administrations, and BLE, as the
          federal authority, has limited possibilities to influence the level of staff and
          resources allocated by the individual Länder. This may be problematic,
          especially for the Baltic ports, given the large number of landing points and the
          large number of small vessels operating out of the harbours in the area.

          The control of the compliance with the technical measures, especially by the
          beam trawler fleet in the North Sea and the trawl fishery for cod in the Baltic,
          poses substantial demands on the responsible authorities. The Commission is not
          convinced that the applicable rules are fully respected by all vessels concerned.

          Germany has adopted national measures to control the development of the
          structure of the fishing fleet, and the activities of the vessels involved are
          monitored in relation to the MAGP IV segmentation. However, the Commission
          is not convinced of the reliability of the contents of the fleet register in relation
          to engine power. The verification of engine power on the beam trawlers fishing
          in the North Sea Plaice Box has been given priority because this fleet is
          identified as the one where manipulation of engine power has the greatest
          potential. As a result verification of other fleet segments has been limited.
          Because of the technical expertise required to verify the power of an engine,
          BLE must seek the assistance of Germanischer Lloyd for inspections.




EN                                               92                                               EN
     The BLE has implemented the relevant Community legislation regarding catch
     and effort registration and VMS is used to verify activity wherever possible.
     However, the Commission is concerned about the veracity of landings
     information concerning German fishing vessels operating beyond the national
     EEZ and landing in foreign ports – notably with the cutter fleet operating out of
     the Netherlands and the freezer trawlers operating in the Atlantic. The German
     authorities are obviously in a difficult position to closely monitor vessels which
     are operating exclusively from foreign ports. Under such circumstances, the
     authorities naturally claim that the burden of monitoring such landing activity
     must fall on the Member State concerned. In 2002 the BLE sent one of its patrol
     vessels to work in the waters of other Member States, but greater efforts in this
     direction have been made difficult because of the unwillingness of certain
     Member States to allow German inspection vessels into their EEZ’s. There is a
     programme of co-operation with certain other countries, and the BLE should
     take an active interest in developing such co-operation to more closely monitor
     certain activities of their fleet.

     Germany has successfully implemented VMS. The FMC in Hamburg
     undertakes cross checks against EC logbooks, but there is no systematic
     programme for making these verifications and the BLE have commented on the
     high costs that would be involved if such a programme were to be introduced.
     The Commission is concerned about the accuracy of catch recording by ICES
     area by the vessels of the deep sea fleet. Whilst VMS data is sent to client
     stations onboard the large BLE patrol vessels, there is no systematic distribution
     of the data to the port offices.

     In the framework of the national control system, the BLE undertakes inspection
     of the discharges by freezer trawlers. The inspection of landings by the inshore
     fleet by the Länder authorities is undertaken on an apparently ad hoc basis, the
     exception being an emphasis on controlling cod landings in the Baltic. The
     Commission believes that a more systematic programme of shore inspections
     should be initiated and records made available to the central authority. No
     national statistics are available for port inspection activity; only data for the area
     of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is presently provided.

     Germany has introduced a scheme for advance notification of landings in Baltic
     ports where vessels are at sea for more than 24 hours. In practice this system is
     flawed because the flow of information from the central administrations of the
     Länder authorities (who receive the notifications) to the inspectors in the ports
     does not occur during ‘out of office’ hours. A similar situation has been noted
     with regards to the receipt of hail messages from third country vessels fishing in
     the German EEZ, where the information is sent to BLE Hamburg but not
     immediately forwarded to FPV’s at sea.

     In regard to imported fish (overland, merchant vessels, direct landings by
     foreign fishing vessels) priority is given to sanitary inspections. Controls in
     relation to conservation policy have a low priority.




EN                                          93                                                EN
     Given the number of landings by pelagic vessels and the fact that there is no
     officially agreed nominal weight used for containers, verification of quantities
     discharged is made very difficult for the inspection service.

     Inspection and control before and after first sale of transported fish is not
     undertaken on any appreciable scale. BLE has explained that control priority is
     given to maritime and quayside checks and that most fishery products
     transported are actually of frozen and filleted fish. Therefore, BLE does not
     consider the control of these products an efficient use of the manpower
     available, which can be better utilised at the points of landing. However, there is
     an obligation under the Control Regulation to verify the origin of transported
     fish (i.e. in the form of transport documentation or take-over documentation),
     and the German authorities should undertake checks to verify the origin of these
     products because such documents should still accompany the transported
     product.

     Against the background of the organisation of fisheries control, continued effort
     is required to co-ordinate the activities carried out by each competent authority.
     The same applies to co-operation with other Member States and other official
     bodies – i.e. IBSFC, NEAFC and NAFO. A particular weak area concerns
     contact with the Netherlands and Spain when German vessels discharge in their
     ports.

     The administrative method of sanctioning fisheries infringements should in
     principle provide for a swift and efficient procedure and produce uniform
     results. There appear to be some variations between the federal level and
     Länder, and between the Länder themselves, both as to the statutory levels of
     fines and as regards the actual application of the rules. The BLE has explained
     that the levels of fines are partly determined by what is considered acceptable to
     the courts and which will not result in subsequent appeals by defendants.
     Additionally, because the sanctioning system does not have to always involve
     prosecution officials, even minor infringements are punished in the form of
     fines. The level of such numerous fines will therefore be correspondingly low.
     Due to the federal structure of Germany, the BLE has limited possibilities to
     influence the manner in which the Länder enforce the rules and sanction
     infringements.

     The number of serious infringements detected is rather low in relation to the
     importance of the fishing activity carried out by the sector as a whole. The
     Commission is not convinced that the level of fines applied act as an effective
     deterrent to illegal activities.




EN                                         94                                              EN
                                          GREECE

     1.     SCOPE OF FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            Greece is the only Member state, along with Italy, to have its entire coast in the
            Mediterranean Sea. The Greek fishing industry is in first position within the
            European Union in number of vessels, the second in number of fishermen, the
            fifth in terms of engine power and the twelfth in terms of catches.

     1.1.   Fleet

            The Greek fleet consists of a vast majority of small coastal vessels operating
            from numerous harbours and islands. A limited number of vessels are fishing
            outside the territorial waters and a few oceanic vessels carry out distant waters
            fisheries.

            In order to meet the Greek MAGP IV objectives, the Greek fleet has been
            divided into 8 segments. The fleet capacity decreased from 20,189 vessels with
            a total power of 635,549 kW in 2000 to 19,725 vessels with 611,182 kW in
            2002.

            The largest segment consists of the coastal vessels under 12 meters (4D1) with
            91% in terms of number of vessels and with 56 % in terms of engine power.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            In accordance with Community regulations, adopting ICCAT recommendations,
            Greece is allocated each year a 329 tonnes initial quota for bluefin tuna, the only
            species subject to quota management in the Mediterranean Sea. This quota was
            amended to 652 tonnes in 2000. The adapted quota was 752 tonnes in 2000 and
            429 tonnes in 2001. For the other highly migratory species (mainly swordfish
            and albacore), the small pelagic and demersal Mediterranean fisheries, the
            Greek authorities did not implement any catch limitation. Greece also benefits
            from fishing opportunities within the agreements concluded by the Commission
            and private access agreements concluded in a bilateral way. The total caches per
            year reach approximately 140,000 tonnes.

     1.3.   National system for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            Licences are issued by the Hellenic Coast Guard administration (hereafter
            HCG), as a part of the Ministry of the Mercantile Marine (hereafter MMM), but
            only after the licence application has been approved by the Ministry of Rural
            Development and Food, which is responsible for the structural policy. This
            licence is valid for two calendar years. The 168 port authorities, which are part
            of HCG and based in the harbour offices, take care of daily registering and
            licensing activities, while a computerised fleet register is kept and controlled by
            the Fisheries Department of the headquarters of HCG. The necessary data
            concerning the vessels characteristics are provided by the Merchant Ships



EN                                                95                                              EN
              Inspection Directorate General (hereafter MSIDG), also a part of MMM. The
              Fishery Department of the MMM has the main responsibility for the computerised
              fishing fleet register.

              The quota for bluefin tuna is managed by the Ministry of Rural Development
              and Food, which each year publishes a ministerial decision for this purpose.
              Vessels are authorised to fish highly migratory species after having been granted
              a special permit by the HCG, following a decision by the local Fisheries
              Departments of the Prefectures which are under the authority of the Ministry of
              Rural Development and Food. For the fisheries of highly migratory species,
              landing declarations are compulsory, and they are collected by the port
              authorities in the landing places. Landing figures are faxed every week to the
              Ministry of Rural Development and Food while the landing declarations are
              mailed every month to the same authorities and to the Fisheries Department of
              the HCG. The Prefectures are responsible for the veterinary control and the
              validation of the ICCAT statistical documents for imported or exported bluefin
              tuna. The data is mailed every six months to the Ministry of Rural Development
              and Food for quota management purposes.

              Although no catch limitations were fixed for any other Mediterranean species,
              national legislation imposes biological stops for Greek vessels in several
              fisheries. Trawling activity is prohibited from the 1 June to 30 September, while
              swordfish fishing cannot be carried out from the 1 October to 31 January, in
              order to protect swordfish juveniles. Finally, both day and night purse seining
              activities are prohibited for two and a half months every year.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Greek sovereignty or jurisdiction

              Greece has a coastline of approximately 15,000 km. The territorial waters are
              limited to 6 miles. The lack of an EEZ in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the
              geography of the mainland and of the 3,500 Greek islands and islets in the
              Aegean and Ionian Sea create a unique environment for fisheries, resulting in
              large corridors of international waters allowing vessels from third countries and
              of other Member states to operate as close as 6 nautical miles from the Greek
              coast.

              Most of the 18,000 coastal vessels, 91% of the Greek fleet, are mainly fishing in
              the territorial waters. Since the continental shelf is very limited in the major part
              of Greek waters, these vessels are above all fishing in the very near coastal
              waters. In addition, most of the middle water vessels, such as bottom trawlers,
              purse seiners or longliners, are liable to operate in territorial waters.

     1.4.2.   International waters and third country waters

              In the absence of an EEZ, most middle water fishing vessels are liable to operate
              in the Mediterranean international waters. This fleet included 1,703 vessels in
              2001, using bottom trawl or fixed gear to target demersal species, purse seine for
              small pelagic species and to a limited extent for tuna and “tuna-like” species.



EN                                                   96                                               EN
              Surface longlines are used to target highly migratory species such as swordfish,
              bluefin tuna and albacore. In 2000, 584 vessels were granted special fishing
              permits to target highly migratory species. In addition, there were 51 vessels in
              2000 and 2001 and 49 in 2002, prosecuting fishing operations in oceanic
              international or third country waters. The majority of these vessels operated
              within the framework of fishing agreements in third countries’ waters on the
              West African coast.

     1.4.3.   Landings

              Greece has a high number of harbours and landing points. In addition to the very
              large number of small coastal vessels, most middle water vessels land daily.
              Consequently, a very high number of landings take place every fishing day in
              numerous harbours, spread along the entire Greek coast. The size of a daily
              landings made by a vessel of the coastal fleet, consisting of numerous species, is
              however generally very small.

              Eleven ports have a fish auction (Piraeus, N. Michaniona (Thessaloniki),
              Alexandroupoli, Kavala, Patras, Messolongi, Preveza, Chios, Kalimnos,
              Chalkida and Chania). Auction centres handle the majority of imported fish and
              about 30 % of the total fish landed in Greece. In 2000 52,995 tonnes, in 2001
              52,697 tonnes and in 2002 69,730 tonnes of domestic catches were landed and
              auctioned in these auctions. The main species of the throughput were anchovy,
              sardines, hake, bogue, picarel, horse mackerel, sea bream, mackerel, octopus
              and red mullet. The total landings made by the Greek fleet in the European
              Union reached 90, 380 tonnes in 2000.

              The auction centres are supervised by the Ministry of Rural Development and
              Food. The company ETANAL SA takes care of the management and
              administration of the centres.

     1.4.4.   Import, processing and transport

              Imported fish from other Member States and from third countries are registered
              separately. Third country vessels can only land in Patras, Piraeus, Thessaloniki and
              Kavala. Respectively 8,073 and 4,361 tonnes coming from other Member States,
              and 36,627 and 3,273 tonnes imported from third countries were sold in 2000
              and 2001 through Greek auctions.

              All fish arriving by road transport must be provided with transport documents
              indicating the origin of the fish, its destination and the quantities involved.

              In Greece few fishermen are members of Producer Organisations, which are
              only involved in a small proportion of the national catches. No withdrawals of
              fish took place during the period 2000-2002.




EN                                                  97                                               EN
     2.      LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.    Legislation and administration

             The main legal act governing fisheries in Greece is the Fisheries Code, Law N°
             420 of 31 January 1970. This law constitutes the basic framework for all
             fisheries-related matters: conservation and management measures, fishing fleet
             structure, markets as well as monitoring, control and sanctioning provisions.
             This law has been amended on several occasions, most recently in 1995.

             The Fisheries Code contains the legal basis for the adoption of secondary
             legislation and authorises the Greek fisheries administration to draft statutes of
             two different hierarchical levels: Presidential Decrees which have permanent
             validity or Ministerial Decisions, adopted in this field by the Ministry of Rural
             Development and Food, valid for a maximum period of one year. Apart from
             these general normative decisions, the Greek ministries issue circulars to clarify
             the contents of the law in force. Greece has also issued specific regulations12 in
             order to transpose into Greek law the Community regulations13 concerning the
             technical measures applicable in the Mediterranean Sea.

             The Ministry of Rural Development and Food, through its General Directorate
             for Fisheries, is responsible for fisheries policy and legislation. The General
             Directorate for Fisheries is represented at regional level in the existing 54
             prefectures. These regional authorities, located in the capital of the region, are
             responsible for fisheries matters in their respective areas. The Ministry of Rural
             Development and Food does not however carry out enforcement and control
             activities by its own means.

             The MMM is responsible for control and monitoring of fishing activities. The
             practical control and monitoring is carried out by the Hellenic Coast Guard
             (HCG), through its Fisheries Control Department (hereafter FCD), located at the
             HCG headquarters in Piraeus. The headquarters co-ordinates control all over
             Greece, and may issue instructions on how to enforce the rules and give orders
             for specific inspections or actions to be carried out by local HCG authorities in
             the harbour offices. The peripheral structure of HCG consists of 168 harbour
             offices, and it is the HCG officials in these harbours who carry out the practical
             control operations.

             The HCG headquarters also keeps the national fishing fleet register through its
             FCD, and the harbour offices take care of the daily licensing procedures. In
             addition, the Merchant Ships Inspection Directorate General (MSIDG), also
             belonging to MMM, is responsible for controlling and providing the vessels
             characteristics for registration and structural policy purposes.

             The Ministry of Development has a part to play in fisheries-related matters,
             especially in market administration and monitoring of the sales and transports of



     12
            Law N° 2332/95 and Decision FEK 20B/16/01/01.
     13
            Council Regulations (EC) N° 1626/94 and 2550/2000.



EN                                                    98                                          EN
             fish. The Customs, part of the Ministry of Finance, is responsible for the
             controls of the exports and the imports of all fish products.

             Professional organisations participate in the decision-making procedures
             through the “Fisheries Board”. This body is a central entity under the Ministry
             of Rural Development and Food, comprised of the Secretary General, acting as
             president, and the directors of the three fisheries departments of the Ministry of
             Rural Development and Food, a lawyer, an officer from the HCG, one
             representative of the fishermen’s association, one from the Greek Centre for
             Marine Research, one from the veterinary service and one representative from
             the Greek Association for Ichthyology. The Board presents opinions on
             proposed legislation and also functions as an appeal forum for all fisheries
             infringement procedures.

             The Ministry of Rural Development and Food's veterinary services are
             responsible for applying Community rules on hygiene and perform the required
             veterinary and health inspections on fisheries products as well as on processing
             facilities. In addition, as of 1999, the Central Food Control Agency (EFET)
             carries out controls on fish from an alimentary perspective.

     2.2.    Powers of control

             HCG officials are empowered to carry out sea and port inspections concerning
             the application of fisheries legislation and of safety requirements at sea
             according to international conventions and national laws, as well as on vessels
             characteristics such as engine power, length and tonnage14. These powers have
             recently been extended to cover on shore checks of catch declaration documents
             (logbooks and landing declarations). These officials are authorised to issue
             citations in the case of an infringement.

             The area of competence for the HCG official concerns strictly the maritime
             domain, that is to say at sea and within the administrative area of the harbour.
             Infringements observed in locations outside of this area, such as in retail
             premises or during transport, become a matter for the police. However, the HCG
             are authorised to follow somebody who tries to flee after an infringement has
             been detected in their area of competence.

             The employees of the Prefecture “Fisheries Control Committee”, which has
             been established by Greek Law since 2001, are empowered, under the authority
             of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, to carry out fresh fish products
             control regarding logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes, trade of fish
             through auctions, labelling of trade species and transport documents. This power
             is limited up to the first sale in auctions, landing ports, import and export points
             and store rooms. However this committee has not yet been activated due to
             financial constrains.




     14
            Article 11 of Law N° 470/20, as amended by Article 9 of Law N° 2040/92.



EN                                                     99                                           EN
     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The infringements in the area of fisheries that give rise to sanctions are detailed
            in Article 11 in the Fisheries Code, as modified. The system in place in Greece
            for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is a system mainly based on
            administrative procedure. Criminal procedure is used as a complement for those
            infractions that are considered particularly serious. The Harbour Master – an
            officer of the Coast Guard – is the authority which takes a decision to sanction
            an infringement.

            Infringement procedures are only directed against individuals. The liable person
            is in most cases the master of the vessel, while no procedures are directed
            against the owner of the vessel (if different from the master). Special provisions
            apply in the case of foreign vessels fishing within the six nautical miles, namely
            Article 104 in the Penal Code. The maximum penalty is a prison sentence of six
            months, and fines are imposed. This procedure is exclusively of a criminal
            nature.

            The Coast Guard personnel carry out inspections both at sea and on land, and
            when an infringement is detected the inspector has a duty to act. After detecting
            an infringement the officer in charge of the inspection vessel, or the inspector
            carrying out an inspection ashore, will draft a statement of the events. The
            person suspected to have committed an infraction does not have to sign this
            statement or otherwise agree as to the facts. On the basis of this statement by the
            inspector, the Harbour Master invites the infringing party by mail to state his
            defence within 48 hours of receipt of the mail and the statement. The procedure
            is all in writing.

            No security measures in the strict sense are taken, i.e. to secure evidence or to
            secure payment of fines. Illegal gear will be seized and destroyed at once. There
            is no need to keep it for the subsequent procedure; a statement by an inspector
            that the gear was illegal is sufficient. Also, the whole catch resulting from
            fishing with illegal gear will be seized and sold. In case of illegal trawl fishing,
            the last haul will be seized. It is the Coast Guard personnel that physically takes
            care of the fish and effects the actual sale of the fish. Undersize fish will be
            seized and destroyed immediately (or possibly given away to orphanages if it is
            fit for human consumption).

            The inspection officers will draft a decision for the Harbour Master to sign.
            There is no time limit within which this decision must be taken, and the
            handling time will wary according to the workload of the harbour authority. The
            time from initiation of procedure to decision may be as short as 20 days, but it
            can also be six months before a decision is taken.

            The sanctioning decision in an administrative procedure is taken by the local
            Harbour Master in the area where the infraction was committed. A fine is
            imposed and withdrawal of license is generally ordered. The action is
            exclusively directed against the master of the vessel, but the owner will have
            joint and several liability for the payment of any fines imposed. When criminal
            procedure is applied, the competent court is the local criminal court. Appeals



EN                                               100                                               EN
     can be made to the next instance in accordance with ordinary rules on criminal
     procedure.

     The primary administrative sanction is a fine, and these fines are roughly
     categorised according to the method of fishing (Article 11 of the Fisheries
     Code). The first category covers sports fishery, gillnets and other static gear,
     small scale professional fishery etc, and the fines range from € 293 to € 1,467.
     The second category is for professional fishing with active gear, trawls and
     purse seines etc., and the fines range from € 587 to € 2,935. Furthermore, special
     fines apply for specific infractions, such as fishing with explosives, toxic
     substances and other chemicals, where the fines range from € 1,467 to € 14,674.
     Another category is illegal red coral fishing, fishing in forbidden areas, use of
     illegal gear, failure to submit landing declaration, where fines range from € 587
     to € 14,674.

     Repeat offences, committed within two years of the first infraction, will result in
     the new fine being imposed at double the amount that would otherwise apply. It
     is up to the Harbour Master to set the level of fine in accordance with the levels
     permitted by law. However, there are fairly detailed instructions, in the form of
     a circular, issued for the setting of fines, where examples and recommendations
     are given about the levels of fines to be applied. For instance at the beginning of
     a biological fishing stop, the authorities are instructed to be more severe and to
     impose higher fines. For a first offender, the fine is likely to be set at the
     minimum prescribed in the law.

     The economic benefit of the offence (as opposed to its gravity) is not taken into
     account when deciding the level of the fine. However, fish caught illegally is
     regularly confiscated, which means that the fisherman is, in any event, deprived
     of any benefit resulting from the infraction.

     In addition to the fine, the law provides for a power to withdraw the licence.
     This includes the general licence for the captain and the specific licence given
     for the vessel depending on fishing method. For most infractions committed in
     commercial fishing, the licence can be suspended or withdrawn for 10 to 60
     days. For fishing with explosives etc., it is possible to withdraw the vessel’s
     license for three to six years, and the captain’s licence can also be withdrawn
     temporarily or even permanently. For illegal red coral fishing, the licence for the
     vessel can be withdrawn until the end of the period for which it is issued and no
     new license will be issued in the following three years.

     In certain cases, such as fishing with explosives, chemical and toxic substances,
     and illegal red coral fishing, a criminal procedure will be initiated in addition to
     the administrative procedure. The possible sanction is a prison sentence, which
     can range from five months to three years if the offender is caught in the act,
     five months to two years for illegal possession of explosives and from three
     months to three years for selling of explosives. In addition to the administrative
     fine, the court can also impose further fines which can range from € 587 to €
     29,347. The court can also order confiscation and sale of the fishing vessel as
     well as confiscation of all other means used for committing the infraction.




EN                                        101                                               EN
            In 90 % of the cases, a sanction decision will be appealed, mainly because of the
            withdrawal of license which has severe consequences for the fisherman. The
            appeal means that the withdrawal of the license is suspended for the duration of
            the appeal. However, the fine must still be paid and the money stays in a special
            account.

            Appeals must be submitted within 15 days of the decision and be directed to the
            Fisheries Board. The Board takes its decision with majority vote. It can reduce
            the fine, and its decision concerning the withdrawal of license has legal force
            and cannot be appealed further. It appears, however, that the decision by the
            Board normally will not differ from the decision passed by the Harbour Master.
            The time it takes for the Board to deal with an appeal case is very long, in
            general 2 – 5 years.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            No information as regards the budgetary resources available for fisheries control
            and enforcement for 2000-2002 has been provided, the reason being, according
            to the Greek authorities, that it is not possible to specify which amount was
            directed to fisheries control by the various administrations involved.

     3.2.   Human resources

            The harbour offices, 162 in 2000, 167 in 2001 and 168 in 2002, employed some
            3,446 officials in 2000, 6,220 in 2001 and 6,705 in 2002. Of these officials, 270
            officers work on a full-time basis with fisheries matters. The remaining
            personnel may be involved in fisheries control as the occasion requires. Some
            1,200 employees work as crew on patrol vessels, on aircraft, patrol vehicles etc.
            All personnel of HCG have received basic training in fisheries-related matters.
            During the last three years, some 240 HCG officers have attended specific
            training seminars concentrating on these topics. The Fisheries Department in the
            headquarters of HCG employs 13 officials.

     3.3.   Other resources

            From 2000 to 2002, the number of patrol boats utilised by HCG increased from
            141 to 203, the number of aircraft from 4 to 7 and the number of road vehicles
            (including motor cycles) from 297 to 322. Three aircraft, 43 patrol boats, 105
            patrol cars and 16 motor cycles have been acquired using Commission funding
            and are used primary for fisheries related matters. A number of them participate
            occasionally in other tasks such as search and rescue, maritime policing and
            border control.

            Aerial surveillance is carried out by HCG officers and is under the HCG
            operational control. The patrol covers the whole Greek air space (FIR of
            Athens), which means both national and international waters.




EN                                              102                                             EN
     3.4.   Financial aid program

            During the period 2000-2002, the Community financial contribution allocated to
            Greece for fisheries control was as follows (in €):

                        2000                2001                2002

                     1,759,150           2,250,000           2,785,000

            The Community financial contribution for fisheries control for Greece is
            considerably delayed because of the lengthy administrative procedures in
            Greece in connection with public calls for tenders. The principal investments
            were for the acquisition of maritime patrol aircraft in 2000.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control Data base

            Greece was exempted, until 1 January 2000, from the obligations concerning
            catch registration, by way of EC logbooks and landing declarations, in the
            Mediterranean Sea area.

            The catch registration system was still under development at the end of 2002.
            The main focus before 2002 has been to implement an efficient method of
            aggregating reliable catch figures for bluefin tuna and swordfish. In 2002, the
            Mediterranean EC logbooks were distributed to the local port authorities but not
            to the fishing vessels. The latter will take place with the activation of the
            computerised catch registration data-base which is in the process of being
            developed. At the end of 2002 this data-base was not yet operational.

     4.2.   VMS

            The operational implementation of a satellite based monitoring system (VMS) to
            monitor the positions of Community vessels got underway on May 2001, when
            the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) was installed in the MMM. At the end
            of year 2002, VMS had been established, in line with the Control Regulation, by
            the Greek national authorities. The (FMC) is located in the Fisheries Department
            of the HCG headquarters in Piraeus. Although 231 Greek fishing vessels were
            found to be longer than 24 metres, and despite the fact that Greek authorities
            identified 330 vessels liable in principle to be fitted with VMS (National
            legislation stipulates that all trawlers whatever the length should be fitted.), only
            59 vessels were eventually recognised as subject to the VMS obligation, which
            was due to the exemptions provided by Article 3 (3) of the Control Regulation.
            Of these 59, only 27 vessels were actually fitted with VMS equipment, and the
            Greek authorities have stated that the remaining vessels are no longer in active
            service.

            The national authorities have a control methodology in place to monitor vessels
            with a VMS derogation, and technical and operational measures have been
            adopted to ensure that the VMS is fully operational. The functions and staff of


EN                                                 103                                              EN
            the FMC are in line with the Community requirements. Remote access by DG
            Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing the data recorded by the
            FMC is ready to be provided.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Greek sovereignty or jurisdiction

            Inspection activities have consisted of mainly monitoring the observance of
            Community and national technical measures applicable in the Mediterranean
            Sea, such as the prohibition to use trawls within 3 nautical miles from the shore
            or within the 50 meters of depth, the minimum size of fish, the minimum mesh
            size for bottom trawl, the maximum length of fixed gear and the prohibition to
            use toxic or explosive substances.

            Regular control activities take place to ensure that driftnets, prohibited by
            national law since 1993, are no longer in use in the territorial waters, and not
            kept onboard Greek vessels.

            The HCG control services verify that the biological stops implemented at
            national level in several fisheries are respected, by ensuring that the involved
            vessels remain in the harbours or are not using the prohibited gears. These
            activities are carried out on shore, at sea and by the means of the HCG aircraft.

            Administrative control activities have been carried out in the Ministry of Rural
            Development and Food, by port authorities and the Fisheries Department of the
            HCG in order to clarify fleet registration and to be in position to apply the
            provisions of the Community structural policy.

     5.2.   International waters and third country waters

            Although the Greek territorial waters are limited to 6 nautical miles, and despite
            the fact that there is no EEZ in the Mediterranean, only a limited number of the
            Greek fisheries is carried out in international waters.

            The Greek inspection services have increased monitoring activities at sea
            because of the growing presence of fishing vessels from third countries in the
            Aegean and Ionian Seas.

            Greece participated from 2000 to 2002 in annual joint inspection programs with
            Italy and the Commission in order to monitor and control the driftnet fishery, in
            particular when carried out by the Italian driftnet fleet, in the Mediterranean
            international waters close to the Greek waters.

            In application of national regulations, the fisheries inspection services have to
            verify at sea that biologic stops concerning trawling activity, the swordfish
            fishery and purse seining activity for small pelagic species are respected by
            Greek vessels.




EN                                               104                                             EN
            The vessels fishing in international and third country waters outside of the
            Mediterranean Sea are issued with a special fishing permit and are using the
            catch declaration procedures required within the framework of the fishing
            agreements. The only supplementary provision or strategy in place for the
            control of these vessels is the obligation to sell the fish through the auction of
            Piraeus. The activation of the National catch registration data base and the
            distribution of the EC logbook, which is foreseen to take place in 2003, is
            considered by the Greek authorities to be the “starting point” for the control of
            these fisheries.

     5.3.   Landings

            Routine inspections are normally undertaken in the ports with auctions, and also
            in the majority of the landing places. Although in the past the seagoing patrols
            and inspections played the most important role for the fisheries control, the
            HCG now, as of 2001, perceive the landing control as more and more essential
            and has increased the shore inspection activities towards a systematic change of
            their control procedure. Since the EC logbook has not yet been distributed, the
            landing control concerns mainly the observance of the fish minimum size and
            the compliance with rules concerning gear.

            However, concerning highly migratory species, the HCG has to collect and
            verify the compulsory landing declarations, according to the declaration
            procedure implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food in
            application of Community rules and ICCAT recommendations. The control also
            concerns the licensing control as regards the special fishing permit annually
            issued by the Greek authorities for exerting this fishery.

            With regards to the vessels fishing in the international waters outside the
            Mediterranean, the Ministry of Rural Development and Food collects
            information on the quantities caught and landed abroad from the ship owners.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            Only 11 auctions are in operation in the whole of Greece. According to the
            Greek authorities, the main objective in the market control is to ensure
            compliance with Common Marketing Standards, and control activities in order
            to achieve its implementation have been intensified.

            No specific information concerning control actions carried out during transport
            of fish products has been supplied.

     5.5.   Information on inspection and surveillance activity

            In 2001 and 2002, the Greek inspection services carried out respectively 6,381
            and 7,474 fisheries inspections.

            For the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, 32,758, 33,790 and 41,074 hours
            respectively were spent on fisheries control at sea, 55,906, 48,313 and 46,356
            hours on shore control and 430, 715 and 648 hours on aerial surveillance.



EN                                              105                                              EN
            These activities respectively resulted in 381, 516 and 709 decisions concerning
            professional fisheries, 813, 926 and 1,198 decisions concerning the recreational
            fisheries and 32, 17 and 21 as regards the use of explosive or toxic substances.

            The number of days of vessels licence withdrawn respectively totalled 5,150,
            6,075 and 10,175 days concerning professional fisheries, 3,290, 3,170 and 2,935
            days concerning recreational fisheries and 8,030, 1,175 and 3,170 days as
            regards the use of toxic or explosive substances.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Community rules the Greek authorities reported to the
            Commission to have detected for the years 2000-2002, respectively 385, 364
            and 1,021 serious infringements, of which only 3 in 2001 and in 2002 were not
            concerning vessels flying the Greek flag or involving Greek fishermen. These
            infringements covered 9 types of behaviour in 2000, 8 in 2001 and 10 in 2002.
            For each year, the two main types were use of a prohibited fishing method (D2)
            and unauthorised fishing in a given zone and or restricted area (D5).
            Administrative procedures were initiated in 349 cases for 2001 and in 1,003
            cases in 2002. Both penal and administrative procedures were initiated in 15
            cases in 2001 and in 18 cases in 2002. Penalties were imposed in 336 cases in
            2001 and in 1,012 cases in 2002.

            In 2001, the average fine applied in 320 cases was € 811, ranging from € 1,032
            for use of prohibited fishing methods (D2) to € 300 for fishing under cover of
            falsified documents (C2). The seizure of catches and gear was ordered in 136
            cases, of which 45 cases for unauthorised fishing in a given zone and or
            restricted area (D5) and 40 cases for failure to comply with the rules on
            minimum size (D6). In 235 cases licence withdrawal was notified by Greece and
            in particular for unauthorised fishing in a given zone and or restricted area (D5).

            In 2002, the average fine in 897 cases was € 678, ranging from € 1,200 for
            failure to stow unauthorised gear (D3) to € 300 for fishing using falsified
            documents (C2), for falsifying the identification marks of fishing vessels (C3)
            and for directed fishing for, or keeping on board of, a prohibited species (D4).
            Greece ordered seizures of gear or catches in 980 cases and licence withdrawals
            in 560 cases, above all, in both cases, for using prohibited fishing methods (D2).


     6.     COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            A wide area computers network links the local systems of the 34 main port
            authorities with the central system of MMM and the Ministry of Rural
            Development and Food. The 11 auction centres managed by ETANAL S.A. are
            linked to the port authorities fisheries section of Piraeus, Thessaloniki, Kavala,
            Chios, Chalkis, Messologiou, Katakolou, Neapolis, Lefkadas.




EN                                               106                                              EN
     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            Four joint Greek-Italian fishery control programmes were carried out in 2000
            and 2001 in national and international waters of the Ionian and the Aegean Seas.
            These were mainly targeting the swordfish driftnet fishery by Italian fishing
            vessels.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            The monitoring and control of the Greek fisheries is a genuine challenge. The
            Greek fishing industry is the first in the European Union in number of vessels,
            of which 91% are small coastal vessels, the second in terms of fishermen, the
            fifth in terms of engine power and the twelfth in terms of catches. In addition,
            these vessels use a wide range of fishing gears, catch numerous species, mainly
            in small quantities, which are landed in a high number of landing points and
            harbours, both in continental Greece and on the islands. The pressure exerted on
            coastal waters is intensive.

            Greece has implemented a control system for fishing activities in accordance
            with the Control Regulation. The legal basis and the administrative structures
            provide a framework in order to implement and enforce the Common Fisheries
            Policy.

            Greece has implemented appropriate legal and administrative instruments to
            manage the fleet capacity. On the overall level, the fishing fleet register appears
            to be kept in a rather satisfactory manner. However, cross verification of the
            Commission fleet register and the national fleet register has indicated some
            inconsistencies and the reliability of the data concerning engine power are in
            question. Moreover, the implementation of MAGP IV requirements has not been
            assessed since Greece completed the allocation of the vessels into MAGP IV
            segments only in January 2000.

            Greece has allocated considerable means of inspection and surveillance to the
            Hellenic Coast Guard (HCG), in terms of inspection vessels, aircraft and
            manpower. The HCG inspectors have been entrusted with control and sanction
            powers which enable them to fulfil their duties. In addition, the peripheral
            structure of harbour offices is particularly appropriate for the geography of the
            Greek mainland and archipelago and the wide diversity of fishing activities.
            This structure provides a solid basis for future development.

            Fisheries control activities is only one among numerous tasks of the HCG, and
            the overall knowledge in fisheries matters and in Community regulation cannot
            be considered as satisfactory. The Greek authorities have acknowledged that
            continuous specified training for HCG officials would clearly enhance their
            capabilities of carrying out inspection tasks. In order to remedy this weakness, a
            special team of fisheries inspectors was established in 2001 in the headquarters
            of the HCG. In addition to their control tasks, these inspectors provide training
            for the HCG personnel involved in fisheries control and monitoring. The Greek




EN                                               107                                              EN
     authorities have also formalised the inspection procedures by introducing a
     standard inspection form.

     The limited area of waters under Greek jurisdiction, compared to the area of
     international waters in the Ionian, Aegean and Libyan Seas, poses an additional
     challenge. Greek authorities have implemented more restrictive measures than
     the Community rules in several main fisheries, in order to reduce fishing effort
     or to protect juveniles and marine mammals. These measures, which are not
     applied by third countries or other Member States vessels, since most of the
     fisheries concerned are carried out in international waters, may only have a
     limited effect and be of limited benefit to the Greek fishermen.

     The Commission notes the delay in the implementation of the VMS, in the
     distribution of the EC logbook and in the development of a national
     computerised catch registration data base.

     The VMS is operational and was implemented in compliance with the
     Community requirements. However, the FMC operates in isolation and is not
     fully integrated with the fleet register, catch registration systems or other
     elements of control. The level of automation for the verification of data is very
     limited. Accordingly, the operational effectiveness of the system is limited. As a
     result of inactivity or of the derogations in Article 3(3) of the Control
     Regulation, out of the 231 vessels found longer than 24m, and out of the 330
     vessels identified by the Geek authorities (VMS is compulsory for all trawlers
     according to Greek legislation) liable to be fitted with VMS, only 27 vessels
     were actually fitted, In the context of the 19 Greek vessels issued with a special
     fishing permit for operating in the high seas, 7 are not fitted with VMS contrary
     to Community law. No legal proceedings have been taken against these vessels.

     In the Mediterranean Sea, quota management only applies to bluefin tuna. Since
     most of the landing declarations for highly migratory species collected are not
     properly completed, notably concerning bluefin tuna, the Commission cannot
     guarantee that the Greek authorities are in a position to properly manage the
     Greek quota for bluefin tuna.

     The Ministry of Rural Development and Food is responsible for collecting and
     registering catches by the vessels flying the Greek flag and fishing in ACP
     countries waters or in international waters outside the Mediterranean Sea.
     However, the Greek authorities do not systematically monitor these activities
     and only collect the catch and landing declarations from the owners of the
     vessels, not directly from the vessels.

     Approximately one third of the landings are sold through auctions, which does
     not allow for an effective enforcement of the Common Marketing Standards.
     The classification of fish in accordance with these Standards is not applied to its
     full extent, and no procedures for monitoring and control of these have been set
     up by the authorities. Standardised boxes are commonly used both for demersal
     and pelagic species but no procedures have been implemented to control the
     actual weight of these. With only one third of the fish sold through auctions,




EN                                        108                                              EN
     systematic verification of landings by cross checking landing declarations and
     sales notes is impossible.

     The number of infringements detected in professional fisheries remains
     relatively low compare to the size of the fleet, although most of the
     infringements detected are subject to a sanctioning procedure. For certain
     infringements, deterrent sanctions, including licence withdrawals or
     suspensions, have been applied. However, this does not appear to be the case
     concerning the most frequent offences. Owing to the long handling time of the
     appeal procedures and the delays in the execution of sanctions issued, their
     deterrent impact tends to decrease even further. The scheduled implementation
     of the Regional Fisheries Boards should significantly reduce the handling time
     of the appeal procedures.

     The Commission recognises the efforts made by HCG in order to ensure
     compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy and the results achieved.
     However, the organisation of fisheries control and monitoring implemented in
     Greece is the consequence of the division of competencies between the four
     ministries involved. In addition, this organisation corresponds to a tradition that
     fisheries are managed locally or regionally and, therefore, the involvement of
     national authorities is limited. Inspection and surveillance activities are left to
     HCG officials posted in harbour offices. As regard fisheries matters, these
     officials have only a limited support at national level. An agreement between all
     authorities involved in fisheries control as regards a national control strategy
     would clearly be required to obtain the necessary coherence within the Greek
     administration.

     As a result, despite the progress which has been made, and the restrictive
     conservation measures implemented by Greek authorities, fisheries control in
     Greece is not at optimum level, given the control means and power potentially
     involved. In that respect, the Commission is convinced that further significant
     effort by the Greek authorities is necessary in order to ensure full compliance
     with the CFP.




EN                                        109                                              EN
                                        IRELAND

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            Ireland is a major stake-holder in EU fisheries which is reflected in its
            geographical position in the north east Atlantic. A substantial area of the
            European continental shelf lies within its EEZ.

            Irish fishing activity has been characterised by a gradual decline in demersal
            fishing over the last twenty years, but at the same time there has been a
            significant modernisation and expansion in the pelagic sector. The pelagic fleet
            is almost exclusively based in the north west of the country and is a major player
            in relation to European fishing opportunities in the northern Atlantic. A
            substantial number of smaller vessels continue to operate from the major ports
            of the coastal fisheries.

            Ireland’s geographical position in the north east Atlantic places it close to
            important fishing grounds which have been historically fished by vessels from
            many Member States. Irish ports are therefore strategically placed for landings
            by these vessels and catches are then transported to the major European auction
            centres, notably in France and Spain.

     1.1.   Fleet

            In the Irish Sea (ICES VIIa) and Celtic Sea (ICES VIIg) demersal fisheries are
            prosecuted by smaller vessels which target whitefish species in general, notably
            cod, haddock, sole, plaice, whiting and nephrops. Off the south-west and west
            coast (ICES VIIb,c,j and k) important demersal fisheries exist for megrim,
            whiting, hake and anglerfish. These species are traditionally caught by trawl and
            gill net. Fishing for crustacea with fixed gear (pots) also occurs in the coastal
            waters of the south and west.

            The pelagic fleet predominantly targets mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and
            blue whiting throughout the Irish EEZ. The larger vessels of the Irish pelagic
            sector will also fish in other EU and international waters where national fishing
            opportunities exist. There is also an extension of activity by a few very large
            freezer trawlers into waters off the West African coastline under private
            agreements.

            A limited number of vessels continue to participate in the seasonal fishery for
            albacore tuna to the south west of Ireland.

            For the period 2000 to 2002 the Irish fleet’s capacity (according to MAGP IV
            assessment) changed from 1,406 vessels with a total of 190,644 kW and tonnage
            of 59,715 GT to 1,307 vessels with 192,089 kW and tonnage of 70,595 GT. This
            represents an overall decrease of 7% in the number of vessels, a 15% increase in
            total tonnage and a 1% increase in fleet engine power. The anomaly of this




EN                                               110                                             EN
            apparent fleet expansion in regard to tonnage is explained by the entry into the
            Irish fleet register of several new and more powerful vessels.

            In 2002 the largest segments in terms of the number of vessels was 4G1 (smaller
            polyvalent vessels) which comprised 96% of the fleet. The pelagic fleet of 4G2
            accounted for 2% of the vessels and the beam trawlers of segment 4G3 for a
            mere 0.5%.

            In terms of engine power and tonnage, the by far most important segment is
            category 4G2 (pelagic trawlers and purse seiners) which contains 25% of the
            fleets engine power and 45% of the tonnage. The number of vessels in the 4G2
            segment is small – 23 in 2002 – the main reason being that the Irish authorities
            defined the pelagic segment as composed only of vessels equipped with RSW
            tanks. In effect pelagic activity is at a much higher level than seems to be
            initially suggested in the MAGP IV definitions. The noticeable increase in the
            capacity of the pelagic fleet will have undoubtedly had a corresponding effect
            on the increase in catching efficiency by the sector which is one of the most
            modern and effective in the European fleet as a whole.

            The number of boats prosecuting polyvalent demersal and pelagic fisheries has
            dropped (by approximately 7% during the period 2000 - 2002) for various
            reasons – notably by natural wastage and a consequence of licenses having been
            aggregated from several smaller boats for replacement by a single larger vessel.
            It should therefore be noted that the remaining demersal fleet is likely to possess
            a more effective catching capability.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            Most fishing opportunities available to the Irish fleet lie within EU waters, but it
            has also benefited from private agreements with Mauritania. Whilst demersal
            activity tends to be undertaken mostly in domestic waters (and to a limited
            extent UK waters), the pelagic fleet operates extensively in the North Atlantic.

            Irish catchers have access to significant quantities of the available EU TAC’s for
            cod, haddock, pollock, saithe, whiting, hake, sole, anglerfish, megrims, plaice,
            nephrops, ling, mackerel, horse mackerel herring, blue whiting and albacore
            tuna in the various ICES areas of the northern Atlantic.

            In 2001 the initial global quota for the Irish fleet was 252,950 tonnes. The most
            important pelagic species were mackerel (72,020 tonnes), herring (50,460
            tonnes), blue whiting (31,900 tonnes) and horse mackerel (56,960 tonnes). The
            uptake on these pelagic quotas was on average 85%. The main commercial
            demersal species were haddock (7,004 tonnes), cod (4,138 tonnes), anglerfish
            (2,280 tonnes), nephrops (7,120 tonnes), whiting (7,005 tonnes), sole (632
            tonnes), plaice (2,755 tonnes), hake (770 tonnes), megrim (3,040 tonnes) and
            saithe (2,255 tonnes). There was on average a 90% uptake on these allocated
            quotas. There was an adapted quota allocation of 3,158 tonnes of albacore tuna
            of which the Irish fleet caught 89%.




EN                                               111                                               EN
     1.3.   National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

            The central Irish authority with primary responsibility for the implementation of
            fisheries conservation and management policies is the Department of
            Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in Dublin (hereafter DCMNR).
            The Irish authorities manage the available fishing opportunities in two ways –
            by the national fishing vessel licensing scheme, which in turn regulates quota
            uptake, and by the control of fishing effort in certain fleet segments.

            In regard to quota management DCMNR sets quantitative restrictions for TAC
            species where it is felt that catch levels need to be regulated in order that final
            uptake does not exceed the national allocation. The main species involved are
            mackerel, blue-whiting, herring, horse mackerel, sole, plaice, hake, cod and
            monkfish. Catch limits are usually set monthly or two monthly for vessels of
            different sizes. Other TAC species may have no periodic quantitative limits, e.g.
            haddock, but are simply subject to a closure if the national allocation is
            exceeded before the end of a year.

            Licences are issued on behalf of the Minister by DCMNR. The Irish Fisheries
            Act of 1959, as amended, deals with the licensing requirements of fishing
            vessels. Every commercial fishing vessel must be licensed to operate. Details of
            the vessel, restrictions on catches of particular species, amounts to be caught and
            retained aboard, fishing areas and the fishing method permitted are specified in
            the licence. Licences are usually valid for one year, although it can be for
            longer, and licence conditions can be varied periodically. The licence also has
            set conditions for the prior notification of landings.

            DCMNR has not taken the route of directly allocating quota management
            responsibilities to the industry itself. However, in respect of pelagic fisheries
            close co-operation takes place with the South and West Pelagic Committee
            which was set up during the 2000/2001 herring season in the Celtic Sea and the
            North West Pelagic Management Advisory Committee which was established in
            2000. Both committees are involved in the management of Irish pelagic fisheries
            and include representatives from the national Producer Organisations (PO’s),
            DCMNR and the Marine Institute. In the North West, mackerel allocations are
            based on vessel size and power and there are ‘days at sea’ limitations. Catches
            of horse mackerel are managed by the allocation of overall monthly quotas, i.e.
            the fishery is closed for all vessels once the monthly quota is taken.

            Effort management is enforced, inter alia, through licensing conditions with a
            vessel’s fishing license detailing the MAGP IV segment to which it is allocated.
            Via this licensing requirement, fishing effort in the form of permitted days at sea
            is applied to the MAGP IV segments of 4G2 (pelagic trawl and purse seines)
            and 4G3 (beam trawl). The number of days allocated is based on the individual
            track record of a vessel for the three previous years. Effort allocations cannot be
            transferred or sold.

            DCMNR is responsible for maintaining the national fleet register. All data
            concerning vessel characteristics are extracted from certificates issued by the
            Marine Surveyor's Office (also a part of DCMNR) which undertakes the



EN                                               112                                              EN
              physical measurement and inspection of all Irish vessels over 12 metres. The
              technical measurement of vessels under 12 metres is undertaken by local
              registrars in accordance with Regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act of
              1894 and are verified by the Marine Surveyor's Office.

              Catch registration is a matter solely for the DCMNR. Data from EC logbooks,
              landing declarations and sales-notes are entered into the system in the
              administrative offices in the ports and transmitted on-line to the main database
              in Dublin. All the information is then collated centrally onto the national Fish
              Catch Reporting System (FCRS).

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Irish sovereignty and jurisdiction

              Ireland has an EEZ of approximately 212,400 km² and a coastline of
              approximately 7,500 km. Numerous landing ports are located on all coasts.
              There is a large and diverse Irish fleet to be controlled – 1,307 vessels in 2002.
              The ‘lead’ authority for control activity in the Irish EEZ is DCMNR. In addition
              there is ‘limited’ control activity inside the Irish 12 mile zone by inspectors of
              the Regional Fisheries Boards (see section 2.1. below).

              The Irish EEZ encompasses almost half of ICES areas VI and VII, within which
              are contained up to 23% of the TAC’s allocated in the EU. Some 95% of
              Ireland's quotas come from this area. Irish waters also provide important fishing
              opportunities for vessels from France, the UK, Belgium and Spain. Up to 300
              vessels at any given time have been identified transmitting VMS reports from
              the Grand Sole Bank to the Porcupine Bank. The control of these other MS
              vessels places a large additional control burden on the Irish authorities.
              Moreover, many of these vessels also land their catches into Ireland ports for
              further transport to markets in Spain and France.

              Pelagic fisheries are prosecuted by both large pelagic vessels with RSW tanks
              and smaller polyvalent (dry hold) vessels on a seasonal basis – notably for Celtic
              Sea herring. The domestic demersal fleet operates throughout the Irish EEZ.

              Until the prohibition of their use in 2001 there was drift net activity for albacore
              tuna. Subsequently, Irish vessels have diversified to use pelagic pair trawls to
              target this species. In 2002 there was a 66% reduction in tuna landings when
              compared with 2001.

              The large inshore fleet concentrated on the south and west coasts tends to
              operate on a more localised basis and on the whole targets crab and lobster and
              to a smaller extent nephrops. The introduction of several large ‘super crabbers’
              into the fleet has helped diversify pressure away from the demersal stocks.

     1.4.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

              The Irish EEZ is bordered by the waters of the UK to the north, east and south.
              However, because of the disputed co-ordinates of some of the Irish/UK EEZ
              there is an over-lap and so called ‘grey zones’ exist. There is an ‘understanding’


EN                                                 113                                               EN
               between the control authorities of Ireland and the UK, with protocols on patrol
               activity in these areas to avoid duplication of inspection presence by aircraft and
               surface FPV’s. To the west of Ireland lie the international waters of ICES VIIc,k
               and j and XII. Irish vessels are active in all these areas at various times of the
               year.

               The Irish pelagic RSW fleet is active in the EU waters of the northern North sea
               (ICES IIa) for horse mackerel, mackerel and herring. A few pelagic vessels also
               particularly target Atlanto-Scandic herring in international waters, and these
               catches are landed in Norwegian and UK ports. With pelagic quota opportunities
               also existing in ICES area VIII, Irish vessels land catches from these areas in
               Irish, UK, Dutch or French ports. DCMNR has been critical over what they see
               as the poor level of control applied when Irish vessels land in French and UK
               ports.

               Fishing for albacore tuna mainly takes place in the international waters which lie
               to the south and west of the Irish EEZ.

               During the reference period one or possibly two very large freezer trawlers were
               active in pelagic fisheries in Mauritanian waters as a result of private
               agreements concluded by the owners.

     1.4.3.    Landings and imports

               There are 10 main landing ports in Ireland. Most of these harbours are located
               on the south and west coast. Killybegs, the country’s premier port situated in the
               north west, is the main port for landings by Irish pelagic vessels. In 2001
               landings with of 102,000 tonnes valued in excess of € 38 million were made in
               the region. The majority of demersal fish is landed in the ports of
               Castletownbere, Dingle, Dunmore East, Rathmullan and Rossaveal. The main
               auction centres are located in Killybegs, Greencastle, Rossaveal, Skibbereen,
               Dunmore East and Howth.

               Provisional data indicates that, in 2002, the Irish fleet and aquaculture sector
               produced 245,16515 tonnes of sea fish (pelagic 173,085 tonnes, demersal 39,993
               tonnes and shellfish 32,087 tonnes) with a total value of € 210 million. Landings
               in foreign ports amounted to 68,750 tonnes valued at € 35.6 million.

               The only processing plant in Ireland which can reduce fish for industrial
               purposes is situated in Killybegs and during the period 2000 to 2002 accepted
               some 75,300 tonnes of fish for reduction.

               To meet demand the Irish processing industry relies greatly on imports of the
               base product from other MS and non-EU countries. Imports of fish increased
               from 70,435 tonnes in 2000 to 94,561 tonnes in 2002. Total exports during the
               same period increased from 216,898 tonnes to 307,368 tonnes. By far the most
               important species exported world-wide were mackerel and horse mackerel
               which accounted for 150,102 tonnes in 2002. The Commission does not have

     15
              Source Central Statistics Office Fisheries Statistics annual release.



EN                                                           114                                     EN
              any information on what verification controls are applied to imports of fishery
              products by the Irish authorities in the reference period but it is thought that
              Killybegs is the only port (border point) designated for third country imports
              and the control authority identified is DCMNR.

              In line with the ‘emergency recovery plans’ introduced by the Commission for
              cod in ICES VIIa and the Northern hake stock, DCMNR has introduced specific
              control measures to ensure compliance on catches and landings by Irish and
              foreign vessels in its ports.

              Foreign vessels using Irish ports are mostly from France, the UK, Belgium and
              Spain. The catches discharged by these vessels are exclusively transported to
              continental auction centres.

     1.4.4.   Marketing, processing and transport

              There are approximately 220 authorised processing establishments in Ireland,
              with a concentration of large companies based in the Killybegs area. In addition
              there are eight approved auction centres. Greater competition for reduced
              supplies has, in recent years, lead to high level of restructuring of the processing
              industry. A number of companies in the north west have to rely heavily on
              imports from the UK – totalling nearly 52,000 tonnes in 2001.

              There is a well established transport infrastructure for the movement of fishery
              products within Ireland. Vessels often consign fish from the more remote ports
              or from ports with smaller markets, to the larger auction centres to take
              advantage of the established buyers that exist there. In Ireland there is no
              obligation for catches to be sold at auction, so many transports of fish will go
              directly to the processors’ premises. Given the quantity of transported fish
              moving through Ireland, the verification of transport documentation is an
              important area for control activity. The competent authorities undertaking these
              checks are the fishery inspectors of DCMNR. Only the national police service
              has the authority to stop a lorry when it is in transit.

              In regard to controls in connection with EC marketing Regulations, DCMNR is
              responsible for checking compliance with the common marketing standards.
              These checks are made on the auctions and in the premises of the processors.
              Fishery Officers of DCMNR exercise controls related to pricing arrangements
              through their attendance on the auction floors and inspection of sales records.
              They also monitor fish withdrawals, the disposal of withdrawn fish and the
              operation of carry over premium. A market support unit for intervention
              measures exists within DCMNR and deals with the payments made for support
              measures and also undertakes annual audits of the records of PO’s to whom
              financial payments are granted.




EN                                                 115                                               EN
     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            Irish sea fisheries are principally governed by the Fisheries Act of 1959, which
            has subsequently been amended several times. The principal procedures relating
            to sea fisheries have been included in Part XIII of the Act. In addition to the
            1959 Act, various Statutory Instruments (SI’s) have been brought in under its
            authority, which provide the necessary management tools for specific fisheries.

            The central authority for fisheries control is DCMNR. Its responsibilities include
            the determination of overall fisheries policy and the administration and
            management (including control) of fisheries, the compilation of catch statistics
            and monitoring compliance with the EC common marketing standards and
            support schemes. The operational responsibility for monitoring fishing activities
            is shared between DCMNR’s Fisheries Inspection section, the Naval Service
            and the Air Corps. The latter two organisations are components of the Irish
            Defence Forces and are jointly responsible to the Departments of Defence and
            Fisheries for control, monitoring and surveillance activity at sea.

            The Fisheries Inspectorate, as a part of DCMNR, has inspectors based in the
            major fishing ports. These are charged with the tasks of carrying out fisheries-
            related controls ashore (in ports, auctions and other relevant facilities). The
            Inspectorate is headed by a Sea Fisheries Control Manager and divided into
            three regions, each managed by a Senior Sea Fishery Officer.

            The Naval Service conducts inspections at sea through the deployment of
            fishery patrol vessels (FPV’s). The Air Corps is responsible for aerial
            surveillance of the Irish EEZ. The Naval Service operates from the National
            Supervisory Centre at the naval base in Haulbowline which undertakes the direct
            control and tasking of FPV’s and aircraft. The Irish Fisheries Monitoring Centre
            is operated by the Naval Service in Haulbowline.

            As outlined in section 1.3. above, DCMNR is the lead authority in respect of
            licensing, catch registration and maintains the national fishing fleet register.

            In addition to the control role of DCMNR, the Naval Service and Air Corps,
            there is a limited enforcement responsibility for the seven Regional Fisheries
            Boards (RFB’s). These statutory bodies are responsible for environmental
            quality and protecting the fisheries resources in their regions. However, in the
            context of control for the purposes of the CFP their role was very limited and
            their main activities were concentrated on the salmon fisheries.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            Under the definition given by Section 220 of the Fisheries Act of 1959,
            DCMNR designated inspectors and all naval personnel above the rank of Petty
            Officer embark on FPV’s as Sea Fishery Protection Officers. Pursuant to
            Sections 231 and 233 of the same Act, naval officers have the right to stop and
            board any fishing vessel in the Irish EEZ and carry out inspections.



EN                                               116                                             EN
            If an apparent infringement is detected at sea, the Commanding Officer may
            order the vessel to be detained and escort the vessel to the ‘most convenient’
            port. In port the detained vessel is handed into the custody of the Garda
            Síochána (Police). In harbour the land based inspectors from DCMNR can
            provide any necessary technical support and assistance to the Naval Service
            and/or the prosecuting authorities.

            On shore, Section 231 of the Fisheries Act authorises the inspectors of the
            Department to enter and search private premises or vehicles, to seize and
            examine stored, sold or transported fish as well as to seize any illegal gear,
            catches or documentary evidence.

            Pilots and observers of the Air Corps are not designated as fishery inspectors but
            will provide ‘witness’ statements if an infringement is detected by the aircraft.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            Fisheries enforcement in Ireland is based on penal sanctions imposed on the
            basis of the Fisheries Act. The Office of the Attorney General is the central
            authority responsible for prosecutions in fisheries matters, for which purpose it
            engages State Solicitors to carry out the actual prosecutions. Depending of the
            importance of an individual case, it is dealt with by either a District Court or a
            Circuit Court.

            Strict rules govern the procedure for investigating infringements in Ireland. One
            important rule concerns the continuity of evidence. This means that all the links
            in the chain of evidence have to be documented, from the detention of a vessel
            at sea to the final steps in port. All officials involved in the detection of an
            infringement – the Navy, DCMNR, the police (Garda) – have to make their
            separate statements about their involvement and observations. Failure to do this
            may result in the case being dismissed in a subsequent court proceeding.

            Fishing vessels are always detained, in order to ensure that an adequate
            investigation can be carried out. The detention is not a legal requirement, but in
            practice it is used to give the Office of the Attorney General time to take a
            decision on how to proceed with prosecution. For infringements discovered at
            sea, the Navy de-routes the vessel to the most convenient port, at the discretion
            of the captain of the patrol vessel. A vessel can also be detained if an
            infringement is detected in port, although this is more infrequent. After having
            been detained temporarily by the Navy at sea or by DCMNR ashore, the vessel
            is handed over to the Garda for formal detention and to secure continuity of
            evidence. A bond may be set for the release of the vessel. It is not an obligatory
            measure but will be used for foreign vessels and occasionally for Irish boats.

            There is no formal requirement that the master of the vessel (or any responsible
            person) has to sign an act or give a statement during the investigations.
            According to Irish criminal procedure it is however necessary to caution the
            person committing the infringement. Statements are prepared, by the competent
            officers involved, for the prosecution authorities and the reported facts in these




EN                                               117                                             EN
     cannot be changed later, though in some cases it may be possible to add and
     complement the data given in a statement.

     All statements, together with any other evidence, are handed over to the
     competent State Solicitor, who will, after any necessary consultation with the
     Office of the Attorney General, bring the matter before the competent court.
     Depending on the seriousness of the infringement, the Office of the Attorney
     General decides which court should hear the case, the District Court or the
     Circuit Court. The District Court decides cases leading to a summary conviction,
     with one judge hearing the case and deciding both on the question of guilt and
     the level of the sanction. The Circuit Court deals with cases leading to a
     conviction on indictment, and a jury decides on the question of guilt while the
     amount of the fine and forfeiture/confiscation is decided by the presiding judge.
     The majority of all infringements detected and followed up in Irish courts are
     categorised as serious infringements and therefore prosecuted in the Circuit
     Court.

     Handling times are different depending on the court chosen. In the District Court
     the case will be disposed of immediately, often within the 48 hours of detention.
     The Circuit Court sits four times a year, and the handling time therefore depends
     on when the court is in session. If the skipper pleads guilty, the case can be
     disposed of within three months; if not there will be a request for adjournment
     so the parties can prepare their cases and the handling time will be considerably
     longer.

     The Fisheries Act, as amended, provides a list of fisheries offences with the
     associated maximum level of fines and forfeitures. This list is provided as a
     table, with references to different Sections in the Fisheries Act, which, if
     infringed, will give rise to a fine within a specified maximum amount. The
     levels of maximum fines were considerably increased in 1994, and they differ
     according to whether the infringement is dealt with by summary conviction or
     conviction on indictment. Fines on summary conviction, which are minor
     infringements dealt with by the District Court, are limited to a maximum of €
     1,270. The second level is the Circuit Court level, where fines after conviction
     on indictment fall into five categories.

     These categories of maximum fines are € 12,697 (theoretically applicable but
     apparently no longer used), € 25,395, € 63,487, € 126,974 and € 253,948. For
     the last four categories, the forfeiture of catch and gear is a statutory
     consequence of conviction of the offence. This means that if a person is found
     guilty of the offence, the court must also forfeit the estimated value of the gear
     and catch. The forfeiture will include all the gear used during the fishing
     operation as well as the whole catch on board, not only the illegal part of the
     catch.

     The setting of the fines is entirely a matter for the court. The prosecution cannot
     suggest the level of the fines to be imposed, although the State Solicitor can give
     his opinion on the degree of seriousness of the infringement in question. The
     independence of the court means that the fines imposed can differ quite
     considerably between different jurisdictions.



EN                                        118                                              EN
            Section 222B of the Fisheries Act (inserted by section 2 of the Act of 1983)
            delegates the power to grant licences to the Minister. It also gives him the power
            to attach terms and conditions to the licences, and fishing in contravention of a
            condition attached to the licence may entail revocation of the licence. However,
            this option has never been used, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that
            withdrawal of licences would contravene the constitutional guarantee for all
            Irish citizens to make a living by reasonable means.

            The relevant legislation does not contain a legal basis for administering
            warnings, yet such warnings appear to be in frequent use. The Navy administers
            written warnings for minor infringements, such as faulty boarding ladders or
            small quantities of undersize fish. Such warnings are registered and
            communicated to other inspection vessels and to DCMNR in Dublin. Shore
            inspectors sometimes make use of verbal warnings, which are not registered.
            Written warnings are recorded but kept only at local level.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The total annual cost of fisheries protection in Ireland has been estimated by
            Irish authorities to reach € 66 million. The Irish authorities have not provided
            information in order to break down this total into more specific budgetary
            costings, to separate administrative costs from actual enforcement costs ashore,
            at sea and in the air.

     3.2.   Human resources

            In 2001 DCMNR employed a total of 39 Sea Fishery Inspectors of all grades.
            These were based both in Dublin and in the coastal offices. An additional 13
            administrative officials were employed in the DCMNR headquarters in Dublin
            whose role was for policy and administrative tasks relating to the
            implementation of fisheries control. Between 250 and 300 Naval Service
            officials were embarked on FPV’s to carry out control at sea. Pilots and
            observers of the Air Corps are not designated as fishery inspectors.

            DCMNR recruited 10 extra inspection staff in 2001 to provide extra control
            presence in the ports. DCMNR has three regional offices in Dublin, Cork and
            Killybegs. There are additional sub-offices in the smaller ports and
            administrative staff plays a supporting role in many of the coastal fishery
            offices.

            With DCMNR relying on the use of outside services for surveillance at sea and
            in the air, the administration has to liase with the Naval Service Headquarters
            based in Haulbowline and the Air Corps based in Baldonnel near Dublin.
            However, the daily control of maritime surveillance is undertaken by the
            operations section comprised of Naval Service staff based in the FMC in
            Haulbowline.




EN                                               119                                             EN
            Inspectors appointed by DCMNR mostly possess a background in fisheries and
            have either formal education in related topics or practical experience. Training
            courses are organised for new inspectors and after the initial courses, training
            continues on the job with the new recruits first operating under the responsibility
            of their more experienced colleagues. Those shore based inspectors capable of
            sea going duties will have periodically undertaken inspection activity onboard
            naval FPV’s.

     3.3.   Other resources

            Eight all-weather FPV’s are made available by the Naval Service for fisheries
            patrol. Additionally the DCMNR shore based inspection service has access to
            three inshore sea fisheries surveillance vessels. Two inshore protection vessels
            and a number of small rigid inflatable craft are utilised by the Central and
            Regional Fishery Boards primarily to monitor the salmon fisheries.

            The Air Corps have two CASA Maritime Patrol Aircraft to carry out
            surveillance both in the Irish EEZ and in international waters (NEAFC). Other
            fixed wing aircraft are utilised, when necessary, principally for monitoring
            inshore salmon fisheries. The Naval Service can also utilise ship based
            helicopters to assist in surveillance at sea. The daily tasking of the aircraft is
            carried out by the Naval Service in consultation with the Air Corps, taking into
            account particular priorities of DCMNR. The FPV’s can request aerial patrols in
            a particular area and communicate directly with the aircraft.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            For the period 2000-2002 Ireland received the following financial contribution
            from the Commission for fisheries control:

                  2000 (in €)              2001 (in €)              2002 (in €)

                 6.43 million             1.19 million             4.05 million

            Financial assistance was targeted towards improvements in operations, technical
            systems and equipment. Spending was concentrated on the main fisheries
            control agencies, i.e. DCMNR, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. Cost
            benefit analysis was undertaken on all funding to ensure that expenditure would
            bring about the best possible results for control. All expenditure was subject to
            public sector accounting.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            DCMNR operates a number of computerised databases including the national
            fishing vessel register which in turn is linked to the fishing vessel licensing
            system. A database also exists for catch registration and effort recording
            purposes – the FCRS. This database is in principle linked to the fleet register to
            enable calculations of fishing effort by MAGP segmentation. However, the


EN                                               120                                              EN
            FCRS database is unable to make such calculations electronically and effort is
            usually calculated manually from EC logsheets. A general upgrade of the
            national statistical system began in 2001.

            The Naval Service has developed its own ‘stand alone’ systems which aim to
            assist FPV’s and the Air Corps in maritime surveillance. These include an
            electronic information library (the ‘Expert’ system) of all national and EU
            legislation and the Fishery Protection Information System (FPIS) which
            incorporates data on licences, entry/exit information, details of inspections and
            sightings of all vessels in Irish waters. The FPIS database is linked to a
            Geographic Information System (GIS). An integrated and comprehensive IT-
            based system, involving both DCMNR and the Naval Service was under
            development during the period – the LIRGUARD project.

            The national centre for receiving and forwarding all VMS information has been
            established within the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) in Haulbowline

            The aircraft of the Air Corps are supplied with laptop computers which enable
            sightings details to be downloaded when aircraft return to base each day. This
            information is then conveyed to all other interested enforcement bodies,
            although it appears that this information is not routinely sent to the port offices
            for purposes of cross checking against EC logsheets. Onboard databases enable
            the aircrew to access various information concerning vessel registration and
            licences.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Irish national
            authorities have established a satellite based monitoring system (VMS) to
            monitor the positions of Community vessels. The national authorities have a
            control methodology in place to monitor vessels with a VMS derogation in order
            to ensure compliance.

            The national FMC was established in the Naval base in Haulbowline in 2000. In
            total 147 vessels have been equipped with satellite terminals and are providing
            position reports. Operational links have been established with other Member
            States for forwarding relevant information.

            The functions and staff of the FMC are in line with the requirements of the
            Control Regulation. However, a deficiency in the system has been identified due
            to the lack of an automatic link to the fleet register and catch registration system.
            Remote access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing
            the data recorded by the FMC has been provided.

            VMS data is transmitted to the FPV’s on a daily basis in order to facilitate better
            patrol planning. A daily update is also sent to some of the port offices but only
            during working hours, i.e. Monday to Friday and possibly Saturday mornings.




EN                                                121                                               EN
     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Irish sovereignty or jurisdiction

            Irish waters (exclusively within ICES areas VI and VII.) are fished intensively
            by vessels from many Member States. There is a high level of collaboration
            between the various services involved in maritime surveillance. The aircraft and
            FPV’s concentrate their efforts on those areas where fishing activity is expected
            to be the most intensive or where there is a distinct prospect that there is non-
            compliance with the rules in force.

            During the period 2000 - 2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general
            EEZ, the national 6 and 12 mile limits in regard to access and technical
            measures and enforcement in the designated ‘conservation boxes’ for cod and
            hake.

            In the period 2000 and 2001 some 2,572 days were spent by vessels of the Naval
            Service on surveillance at sea and a total of 2,602 vessels were inspected. There
            is no information on maritime activity in 2002. In 2001 the Regional Fisheries
            Board undertook approximately 300 days on controls in the inshore salmon and
            sea trout fisheries.

            Aerial surveillance in the same period shows a total duration of 2,688 flying
            hours, the aircraft reporting 10,157 sightings.

     5.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

            Aerial patrols are undertaken in the NEAFC region in collaboration with FPV’s
            from the Naval Service. Similarly, aircraft fly missions during the fishery for
            albacore tuna in international waters to the south and west of the Irish EEZ.
            FPVs of the Navy operate in international waters, particularly to monitor the
            albacore fisheries and in NEAFC waters during the blue whiting season in
            accordance with priorities agreed with the Commission.

            The Naval Service found instances where Irish vessels continued to fish with
            drift nets in excess of 2.5 km targeting albacore tuna contrary to the EC
            Technical Regulation. Additionally there was the problem of Irish vessels
            modifying drift nets and targeting albacore and claiming they were in fact using
            a fixed gill net. The Irish authorities eventually took a very strict line on this
            ‘interpretation’ of the rules and their use by Irish vessels was eventually
            prohibited.

            Ireland did not actively take part in any joint control operations with other MS,
            but DCMNR continues to consider the possibility of an exchange of inspection
            personnel, notably with the UK.

            In regard to the sharing of information about Irish vessels fishing in waters
            outside the national EEZ there is an exchange of VMS data with other MS and
            the Commission.




EN                                              122                                              EN
            DCMNR has given a high priority to surveillance and recording catches by Irish
            vessels in the albacore tuna fishery. However, the activities of other Irish vessels
            fishing beyond EU waters have not been systematically monitored. Catches
            taken in waters of ACP countries (i.e. Mauritania) are not monitored or
            communicated to the Commission.

     5.3.   Landings

            In 2001 there were a total of 38 shore based inspectors in the ports. DCMNR
            ensures a certain flexibility in shore based control activity by allocating human
            resources, as necessary, to seasonal fisheries and priorities in catch management.
            The main purpose of physical checks on landings have been identified as the
            verification of:

            •     compliance with technical measures – minimum sizes, by-catches, etc.

            •     compliance with control measures – transport documentation, quota
                  restrictions, EC Logbooks, declared landings, etc.

            •     compliance with common marketing standards.

            In the period 2000-2001 approximately 26,879 land based inspections and
            checks were made on Irish and other EU vessels discharging fish or visiting
            ports. These inspections encompassed all aspects of control including the check
            of EC logbooks, catches, transport documentation and gear inspection. Pelagic
            landing has been identified as the main priority for landing control and a number
            of verification methodologies are applied – tank dipping, calculation from ullage
            tables, weighing at point of discharge, administrative checks on processors and
            the use of sales-notes. DCMNR has set a target for 10% of all pelagic landings
            to be monitored and in the case of mackerel 100% are to be fully monitored.
            However, no breakdown on inspection activity has been provided to show if
            these targets were achieved. DCMNR introduced a regime of prior notification
            and designated ports for pelagic landings but missions by EC inspectors have
            found instances where vessels have landed without giving prior notification.
            Demersal catches are usually monitored by comparing the physical count of the
            discharge against other control documents, i.e. the EC logbook or landing
            declaration.

            According to the Irish authorities, 50% of all landings are checked by either
            verification on board the vessel in port or in the auctions. Where particular
            problems are identified the level of control may be higher. The Commission has
            noted a particular problem with landings of pelagic species where no
            standardised weighing system have been agreed with the industry concerning
            bulk ‘tanker’ lorries and bins. There is serious concern that the weights
            discharged into the tankers and bins may be significantly higher than that
            accepted by the inspectors in the ports. Initial checks by DCMNR seem to show
            that the tanker lorries could carry anything between 17 and 37 tonnes of fish.

            DCMNR states that the return rate of logbooks and landing declarations is
            almost 100%. Catch data and information available from EC landing



EN                                               123                                               EN
            declarations and sales-notes are entered into the FCRS in the port offices. There
            are only limited manual cross-checks of these documents against the results of
            landing inspections. VMS information is sent to selected port offices in the form
            of a daily faxed ‘picture’ of vessels operating in Irish waters, but this data could
            be better utilised in the cross checking procedure. Ireland introduced a system of
            stratified sampling for less than 10 metre vessels in order to assess catches by
            these vessels and incorporated them into the national catch registration system.

            Because there is no obligation for catches to be sold through the auctions this
            presents a number of problems for the control authorities in obtaining sales-note
            data. In Ireland only vessels landing pelagic species are required to provide
            sales-note information and these documents are produced by the selling agents
            and not the buyers. The Commission has noted that the quantities noted on these
            sales documents invariably reflect what is entered on the vessel’s EC logsheet,
            which leaves doubts about their veracity, especially against the background of
            the 20% tolerance permitted in the EC logbook. In regard to demersal landings
            there was no implementation of the EC Regulation in regard to the supply of
            sales-notes from either national or visiting foreign vessels. Foreign vessels when
            discharging are allowed to enter details on the landing declaration which again
            reflect the details entered on the EC logsheet. DCMNR accepts this practice
            because, it is stated, despite repeated requests to the French and Spanish
            authorities no sales-notes have been provided.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The inspectors with the competency to make day to day controls for marketing
            and transport are the shore based fishery officers of DCMNR.

            In Ireland there are four recognised Producer Organisations (PO’s), one of
            which is solely concerned with aquaculture. Approximately 95% of fish caught
            by the Irish fleet is by vessels in membership of the PO’s.

            Selling Agents undertake the labelling of fish displayed on the auctions, and the
            inspectors then make checks to ensure the classification is correct. However,
            there is no official programme of verification of common marketing standards
            by the inspection service. In respect of withdrawals and intervention measures,
            inspectors in the ports physically check that the quantities and quality of fish are
            correct and complete the necessary documentation. Officials of DCMNR based
            in Dublin then deal with financial reimbursement.

            Ireland has not implemented the Control Regulation requirement for the
            provision of sales-notes for demersal catches. However, sales documentation is
            required for pelagic landings.

            There is no official target for checks of transport documentation but random
            inspections are made to ensure that appropriate documentation is carried by
            vehicles. The Irish authorities accept the use of T2M’s and EC logsheets as
            transport documentation.




EN                                               124                                               EN
            A significant percentage of demersal species landed in Ireland are from French,
            Spanish and UK vessels, with the catches being transported overland to French
            or the Spanish markets for first sale. Foreign vessels are allowed to complete the
            EC landing declaration on arrival, which is accepted in lieu of sales-notes
            despite the fish not being weighed. Therefore, the landing declaration simply
            reflects the EC Logbook figure. The Irish authorities see this as the only method
            of obtaining landing information because of the non-provision of sales-notes
            from the French and Spanish auctions.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports for 2000 and 2001 (no report has been
            provided for 2002) as submitted to the Commission, surveillance and inspection
            activities were carried out by the competent authorities of the Department and
            its enforcement agencies as outlined in section 2.1. above.

            Therefore for the years 2000 and 2001 the Irish authorities reported that 2,572
            days in total were spent on maritime surface patrol. In 2000 a total of 1290 days
            were spent on patrol and 206 infringements were detected, in 2001, 1282 days
            were spent at sea and 202 offences were discovered. Aerial support for maritime
            patrols totalled 2742 flying hours. A total of 2,602 boarding’s were undertaken.
            In the ports 26,879 controls and cross checks were made against landings.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Council Regulations the Irish authorities reported 132
            serious infringements in the reference period of 2000 - 2002. These involved 12
            different infringement types.

            Specifically in 2002 the Irish authorities discovered and reported 26 serious
            infringements involving 8 types of illegal activity. The main offence sanctioned
            was for the falsification of data in control documents (E1) - 13 cases. In total 20
            cases concerned vessels flying the Irish flag or involved Irish fishermen and 6
            concerned vessels flying the flag of other Member States or involved other
            Member States’ nationals. Criminal proceedings were initiated in 20 cases and
            penalties were imposed in 13. The average fine was € 11,978 and varied from €
            23,125 for directed fishing for, or the keeping on board of, an unauthorised
            species (D4) to € 4,600 for the landing of catches not complying with the control
            rules (F1). There were 7 reported cases of the seizure of gear or catches. No
            instances of the withdrawal of a vessel’s fishing licenses were reported.

            Verbal and written warnings are given for minor transgressions. Written
            warnings are also issued in respect of more serious transgressions where
            prosecution may not be in the public interest because of the scale of the offence.
            The Department have stated that in excess of 90% of cases submitted to the
            courts result in a successful prosecution.

            The PO’s have an obligation to enforce disciplinary measures on members who
            break internal rules. However, the Department does not have any information on
            what sanctions would have been applied had this happened.



EN                                               125                                              EN
     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            A structured liaison mechanism is in place to facilitate co-operation between
            DCMNR, the Naval Service and the Air Corps. This is focused on achieving
            optimum efficiency and effectiveness from the available resources in line with
            defined control priorities and objectives. However, shortcomings have been
            identified in the distribution of surveillance data in order to facilitate a routine
            cross check against EC logsheets to be made in the port offices.

            Contacts also exist between DCMNR and other authorities dealing with
            maritime control matters, e.g. PO’s, the Customs and Excise service, the Marine
            Surveyors Office, the various Fisheries Management Committees, the An Bord
            Iascaigh Mhara (BIM), the Marine Institute and the Regional Fishery Boards.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            Ireland has developed a system of co-operation with other Member States,
            notably the UK, on enforcement activity. There has been extensive collaboration
            in providing evidence acceptable in UK courts when British vessels have been
            found to be exceeding their national quota measures. Rather more informal
            contact is maintained with the authorities in the Netherlands, France and Spain.

            The possibility of an exchange of inspection personnel has been under
            consideration by DCMNR for several years. But the legality of the actual
            jurisdiction of other countries officials on Irish FPV’s has not been resolved and
            has stopped this happening. However, protocols do exist on the surveillance
            presence in the disputed ‘grey zones’ with the UK.

            In 2000 Ireland established operational protocols in relation to the supply of
            VMS data with other MS and the European Commission.

            In line with their obligations to NEAFC, Ireland provides FPV’s for patrol
            activity in international waters during the blue whiting fishery. In respect of
            albacore tuna fishing in the Atlantic DCMNR fully implemented the
            recommendations of ICCAT concerning the prohibition on the use of drift nets.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            Ireland has implemented a control system in accordance with the requirements
            of the Control Regulation, notably in relation to Title II. DCMNR has been
            entrusted the general responsibility for the implementation of the CFP.
            Substantial effort was made by DCMNR to establish the basic conditions for
            effective control activity both at sea and ashore. The means allocated to fisheries
            monitoring, inspection and surveillance are considered adequate in respect to the
            Naval Service and substantial resources are also available to the Air Corps.
            Control activity by the Naval Service undoubtedly contributes to improved
            compliance levels notably of technical measures in the waters under Irish
            jurisdiction.


EN                                               126                                               EN
     The number of staff available for controls in the ports was increased in 2001
     after a number of shortcomings in the effectiveness of enforcement in some
     main harbours were identified. The shore based inspectors of DCMNR receive a
     satisfactory level of formal training as do the officers of the Naval Service
     aboard the FPV’s.

     Substantial tasks concerning hygiene, food safety and the control of the
     movement of shellfish products are placed on the inspectors employed by
     DCMNR. Some estimates have put the work level devoted to these tasks at 50%,
     which undoubtedly undermines the effective presence in the ports with the
     inspectors having to spend significant time on tasks not connected to control in
     respect of the CFP.

     The role of fisheries monitoring, inspection and surveillance at sea is considered
     the main task of the Naval Service. There has been a high level of investment in
     providing an integrated electronic communication system between aircraft,
     surveillance vessels and the national FMC. It is considered that inspection and
     surveillance at sea are carried out in a very efficient way. However, a
     shortcoming in this integrated system is the fact that the shore based inspectors
     have no direct access to the databases of the Naval Service and have to
     specifically request information on certain matters. The FMC sends out a daily
     ‘snapshot’ of VMS information to certain port offices. In the course of missions
     by Commission inspectors it was found that whilst the level of co-operation
     between the three respective authorities at the policy level is high, there is little
     collaboration on practical day to day matters between the Naval Service and the
     Fisheries Inspectorate of DCMNR.

     The sales-note requirements of the Control Regulation have not been fully
     implemented, and the existing sales-notes for pelagic landings do not correspond
     to Community Regulations. Whilst the Irish authorities have expressed their
     intentions to develop automated systems for the cross-checking of catch data
     this remains to be achieved. In general, the cross checks of control
     documentation (EC logbooks, landing declarations, effort messages etc) with
     other sourced surveillance data is not undertaken systematically.

     Community Regulations concerning transport documentation are not fully
     enforced in Ireland, and there is no systematic programme of controlling such
     activity prior to the special ‘hake’ measures introduced in 2001. In practice
     foreign vessels are permitted to complete the landing declaration on arrival,
     solely based on the information recorded in the EC logbook, which itself can
     allow for a 20% tolerance in the information recorded. The acceptance of this
     practice does not provide for the necessary veracity required for catch
     assessment.

     As regards inspection and surveillance of landings, the Irish authorities give
     priority to pelagic landings. Although Ireland claims that all landings of
     mackerel have been inspected, there are certain important weaknesses in the
     control systems that need to be addressed before the Commission can be
     confident in the quality of these controls and subsequent national catch statistics
     submitted by DCMNR.



EN                                         127                                               EN
     The Commission remains concerned about the apparent anomaly of Irish exports
     of mackerel greatly exceeding the national catch. Whilst imports of the product
     may go some way to explaining this, the quantities involved possibly indicate
     that large quantities landed are either mis-declared as other species or the final
     landed weights under-declared.

     The problem of accurately weighing pelagic catches discharged in the ports
     persists. There has been no progress with the industry on agreeing standardised
     weights to either bins or tanker lorries when fish is discharged directly to the
     processors.

     The failure of the Irish authorities to fully apply Community measures relating
     to sales-notes and transport documents reduces the opportunity to cross check
     declared catches against EC logsheet data. The Annual Reports supplied for
     2000 and 2001 did not give details on the number of transport checks
     undertaken.

     Apart from vessels engaged in the albacore tuna fishery, the activities of Irish
     fishing vessels beyond Community fishing waters are not systematically
     monitored. Catches taken in Mauritanian waters under the private agreements
     which were concluded are not monitored or communicated to the Commission.

     The Irish authorities have not succeeded in establishing a satisfactory database
     for monitoring fishing effort within Western Waters or within the national
     MAGP IV obligations. Despite claims that the return rate of EC logsheets and
     landing declarations is 100% (which should make the automated calculations of
     effort relatively easy) the system produces calculations which are at odds with
     manual calculations made for the purposes of cross reference. Because effort
     uptake information is not sent to the Commission, the missing data have to be
     estimated. Therefore the Commission’s opinion is that the accuracy of effort
     calculations made by the Department is not guaranteed.

     The information contained in the fleet register is not considered fully up to date.
     FRONT (Fishing vessels information on the Net) information concerning Irish
     vessel lists is therefore flawed. The effort limitations brought about by the
     MAGP IV segmentation concern mainly the two smaller segments, whereas the
     large majority of the fleet remains in one global polyvalent segment. No
     effective management or restructuring measures have been applied to this major
     component of the fleet.

     Ireland has established arrangements for co-operation with neighbouring MS.
     DCMNR and the Naval Service is notably engaged in the exchange of
     enforcement information with the UK. Whilst there was a framework of ad hoc
     liaison with Spain concerning Irish and Spanish vessels fishing in Area VII and
     discharging catches in Spanish ports, this is largely seen as ineffective and
     produces little in the way of constructive control measures.

     In line with the ‘emergency recovery plans’ introduced by the Commission for
     cod and the Northern hake stock, DCMNR introduced specific control measures




EN                                        128                                              EN
     to ensure compliance on catches and landings by Irish and foreign vessels in its
     ports. These measures were adequately employed.

     Continued problems persist with the late submission to the Commission of
     mandatory returns and reports by DCMNR. There is delayed provision of Type
     A and B reports on catch registration, in some cases these reports were absent
     altogether. This has undermined the Commission’s confidence in the FCRS, and
     DG Fish has subsequently had problems in monitoring the uptake of Irish
     fishing opportunities. Additionally, no annual control report was submitted for
     2002.

     The number of serious infringements detected and prosecuted on an annual basis
     is rather modest, particularly taking into account the considerable fishing and
     landing activity which takes place under Irish jurisdiction. In average the courts
     deal with approximately 50 serious infringements a year. These cases are mainly
     detected by the Naval Service at sea, and only a very small percentage is
     detected in port by shore based inspectors. The number of prosecuted cases
     seems insignificant compared to the number of warnings given.

     Generally speaking the levels of fines imposed by Irish courts are very high, and
     as such they must be considered to have a serious deterrent effect.




EN                                       129                                              EN
                                                   ITALY

     1.      SCOPE OF FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

             Italy is the only Member state, along with Greece, to have its entire coastline in the
             Mediterranean Sea. The Italian fishing industry is the first within the European
             Union in terms of engine power, the second in terms of tonnage and of number of
             fishermen and vessels, and the seventh in terms of catches.

     1.1.    Fleet

             The very large Italian fishing fleet is characterised by the prevalence of coastal and
             middle waters scale vessels carrying out a polyvalent activity from a high number of
             fishing harbours, and, with few exceptions, exclusively in the Mediterranean Sea.

             The Italian fishing vessels are divided for navigational safety purposes into four
             categories according to tonnage, engine power and maximum authorised distance
             from the shore16. The same classification is partially reflected in the fleet
             segmentation, which was implemented in order to meet the Italian objectives for
             MAGP IV17. The Italian fleet has been divided into 16 segments. The largest
             segments, in number of vessels, are the coastal vessels fishing with passive gear
             (4H4) with 45 %, and the small coastal fleet (4H1) with 28 %. The largest in term of
             engine power are coastal vessels with passive gear (4H4) with 30 % and the coastal
             bottom trawlers (4H2) with 25 %. This segmentation does not take into account that
             vessels may be licensed simultaneously for several fishing methods.

             The fleet capacity decreased from 17,479 vessels with a total power of 1,401,778 kW
             in 2000 to 15,982 vessels with a total power of 1,290,174 kW in 2002.

     1.2.    Fishing opportunities

             In accordance with quota Community regulations, adopting ICCAT
             recommendations, Italy is allocated each year an initial quota for bluefin tuna, the
             only species subject to quota in the Mediterranean Sea, of 4,958 tonnes. This quota
             was adapted annually in 2000 – 2002 to respectively 5,899, 4,958 and 6,105 tonnes.
             Italy also benefits from fishing opportunities within the agreements concluded by the
             Commission and private bilateral fishing agreements. However, most of the Italian
             fishing opportunities are provided by the Mediterranean fisheries which are not
             subject to quota, comprising other highly migratory species than bluefin tuna, mainly
             albacore and swordfish, pelagic and demersal species.




     16
            DPR N° 1639 of 2 October 1968. (Local coastal fishing (pesca costiera locale) , Close coastal fishing
            (pesca costiera ravicinata), Mediterranean fishing (pesca mediterranea) and Oceanic fishing (pesca
            oceanica)
     17
            Commission Decision 98/128/EC.



EN                                                     130                                                          EN
     1.3.      National system for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

               The access to the fishing resources is regulated by ministerial decree fixing the
               conditions for the issuing of fishing licences18. Italian law authorises 13 fishing
               methods: purse seine, beach seine, bottom trawl, pelagic trawl, mollusc dredging,
               hydraulic dredge, manual dredge, gillnet, driftnet, ferretarra, long line, troll line and
               harpoon19. A fishing vessel may be issued with a licence for up to seven different
               fishing methods. The Ministry of Agriculture (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e
               Forestali), through the General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Direzione
               Generale della Pesca e dell’Acquacoltura), is the competent authority to grant the
               fishing licences.

               The national fleet register database is maintained in the Ministry in accordance with
               the licence information. The data concerning the vessel characteristics are extracted
               from certificates issued by the Italian Vessel Register (Registro Italiano Navale,
               herafter RINa). The harbour offices are empowered to register and handle the licence
               applications. They issue provisional licences, waiting for permanent licences to be
               issued by the Ministry. When the vessels characteristics are modified, the harbour
               offices communicate the changes to the Ministry and once a year submit a list of all
               modifications registered in their area of competence.

               In 2000 Italy launched a programme for issuing of electronic licences, via a network
               connecting the Ministry of Agriculture and the central and peripheral structure of the
               harbour offices administration. The validity period of the fishing licence was also
               increased from 4 to 8 years. During a transitional period, up to 80% of licences were
               observed to be provisional in certain harbours, and thus there were two licence
               registers maintained at the local and national level.

               In order to manage the bluefin tuna quota, the Italian authorities have chosen to first
               share it between fishing methods and then to allocate individual quota to each
               authorised vessel, according to tonnage and inversely proportional to the number of
               fishing methods mentioned in the fishing licence. The list of authorised vessels has
               undergone significant modifications from one year to another.

               For the other highly migratory species, the small pelagic and demersal species caught
               in the Mediterranean Sea which are not subject to quota, the Italian authorities have
               not implemented any catch limitations.

               At local level, in addition to biological stop, the number of hours at sea per day
               and/or week are subject to limitation for certain activities, notably trawling and long-
               lining activities.

     1.4.      Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.    Waters of Member State

               Potentially the whole Italian fishing fleet, with the exception of the few oceanic
               vessels, is liable to fish in Italian territorial waters. The Italian authorities assess the


     18
              Ministerial decree of 26 July 1995, as amended.
     19
              Ministerial decree of the 26 July 1995



EN                                                        131                                                 EN
               number of vessels fishing in the National waters to be about 13,000. This mostly
               concerns the coastal fleet using a wide range of gear.

               In addition, six trap fisheries are still in use in the whole Italy. Their catches are
               seasonal and consist of highly migratory species and mainly bluefin tuna.

     1.4.2.    International waters and third country waters

               In the absence of an EEZ, all Italian fishing vessels authorised by the Italian
               regulation to go further than 12 miles from the shore are liable to operate in
               international waters. These fishing activities are mostly carried out by trawlers, purse
               seiners targeting bluefin tuna, driftnetters and bottom and surface longliners.

               Although the bottom trawlers are present everywhere, when fishing in international
               waters, their main fishing grounds are located in the north and central Adriatic Sea,
               in the Ligurian Sea between Italy, Elba and Corsica, in the Tyrrhenian Sea and
               between Sicily and Tunisia.

               The Italian purse seine fleet targeting bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea involves
               vessels from 25 to 40 meters mostly registered in Salerno, Palermo, Trapani and
               Catania, but also in Pescara, as regards small polyvalent purse seiners strictly
               operating in the Adriatic Sea.

               The driftnet fleet involved vessels from 12 to 25 meters, mostly registered in Sicily,
               using spadara net for swordfish or alalungara net for albacore, but also an
               undetermined number of vessels using ferretara net to target numerous species,
               including bonitos. From 1998, by Community Regulation20, the spadare fleet has
               been subject to a progressive reduction by a voluntary conversion programme, and
               the fishing for highly migratory species with driftnets has been prohibited from 1st
               January 2002. The remaining vessels using spadare have been submitted to a
               compulsory conversion plan by Italy21. Italian authorities have sought to conform the
               use of ferretara nets to Community requirements in order to maintain their use after
               January 200222.

               Italian surface long-liners target bluefin tuna or swordfish or albacore, mainly in the
               South Tyrrhenian, Ionian and South Adriatic Seas.

               There are 25 vessels operating in oceanic waters, of which 20, notably for
               cephalopods and shrimp fisheries, and one purse seiner for tuna, are engaged in
               fishing agreements in the waters off ACP countries such as Guinea-Conakry,
               Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Madagascar and the
               Comores.




     20
              Council Regulation (EC) N° 1239/98.
     21
              Decree law N° 134 of the 6 July 2002.
     22
              Decree of 14 October 1998.



EN                                                    132                                                 EN
     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              Since most of the numerous Italian fishing vessels are landing daily in approximately
              320 main landing harbours and about 800 landing points, the number of landings per
              day is very high.

              The purse seiners for bluefin tuna land directly into trucks in numerous harbours,
              sometimes outside Italy. A large part of their catches are transferred as live fish into
              floating cages for fish fattening carried out in the waters of Spain, Croatia, Malta and
              countries in North Africa.

              The total output of Italian fisheries and aquaculture exceeds 500,000 tonnes per year.
              Demersal fish, crustaceans and cephalopods account for 67 % of the landings, small
              pelagic fish for 24 %, swordfish and tuna species for 2 % and clams for 7 %. From
              2000 to 2002 the total landings from the Mediterranean fisheries decreased by 8.6 %,
              from 293,411 to 251,370 tonnes. The total declared catch of bluefin tuna was
              respectively 3,856, 4,377 and 4,664 tonnes, which means 65.4 %, 88.4% and 76.4 %
              of the adapted Italian quotas for the years in question.

              For the same period the total fish import increased by 10 %, from 838,486 to 869,524
              tonnes, while the export decreased by 9 %, from 141,660 to 127,717 tonnes.

     1.4.4.   Marketing, processing and transport

              In Italy, the sale of fish through auction is not compulsory. A major proportion of
              catches are transported directly from the vessels to the central markets of large cities
              or to the warehouses of local purchasers. Numerous ports, in particular in the south
              of Italy, in Sicily and in most of the islands, do not have auctions facilities.

              The fish processing sector in Italy has virtually no contacts with the catching sector.
              The raw material is mostly imported. In the early 1990’s the activity of this sector
              decreased in terms of total production and of number of employed. Also the capacity
              utilisation has diminished.

              Tuna processing is the most important segment of this industry. In 2000, the
              production reached 80,000 tons. Salted and filleted anchovy production rose 21,300
              tons. The production of canned and frozen clams has also been suffering from the
              lack of raw material, because of the high stock exploitation levels. The total fish
              processed reached 118,400 tons in 2000.


     2.       LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.     Legislation and administration

              The basis of Italian fisheries legislation consists of the Law N° 963 of 14 July 1965
              (as later amended, hereafter the Sea Fishing Law), the presidential regulation, DPR
              N° 1639 of 2 October 1968 (as amended), fixing the modalities for the execution of
              the Sea Fishing Law, and the law N° 41 adopted on the 17 February 1982
              implementing a plan to rationalise and develop sea fisheries. These statutory
              instruments contain delegation provisions for the adoption of subsequent secondary
              legislation by the President of the Republic, by individual competent ministries and


EN                                                 133                                                   EN
           also by general directors. At local level, the harbour master is empowered to
           implement ordinances. In accordance with the Italian constitution and other national
           legislation, legislative powers have also to some extent been awarded to the Italian
           regions, notably Sicily and Sardinia.

           The management of fisheries policy is, from June 199723, the general responsibility
           of the Ministry of Agriculture (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali,
           hereafter MPAF). The General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Direzione
           Generale della Pesca e dell’Acquacoltura, hereafter DGPA), forming a part of this
           ministry, has the actual executive responsibility. The DGPA is responsible, in
           particular, for fisheries control and for monitoring the structural policy. However, the
           DGPA does not have a fisheries inspection service under its direct authority. In this
           field, its competencies consist of initiating control programmes and of carrying out
           administrative control. At local level, the DGPA employs one or two people in each
           harbour office, for fleet registration, catch registration and statistics tasks. The
           DGPA, in order to assume its tasks, receives advice from several consultative
           commissions24.

           The Harbour Offices/Coast Guards Corps, (Capitanerie di Porto / Guardia Costiera,
           hereafter CP/GC) jointly under the Ministry of Defence (Ministero della Difesa) and
           the Ministry of Transport (Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti), have the
           operative responsibility for co-ordination, direction and execution of fisheries control
           activities, also involving various other bodies competent in this field, such as
           Carabinieri, and Italian Navy (Servizio Navale dell’Arma), Customs (Guardia di
           Finanza), State Police (Polizia di Stato) and veterinary services.

           As regards fisheries control, the CP/GC operate under the functional authority of the
           Ministry of Agriculture, and its national headquarters, the General Command of the
           Harbour Offices (Comando Generale delle Capitanerie di Porto, hereafter CGCP), is
           located at the Ministry. The CGCP ensures the co-ordination and control of all the
           activities of the CP/GC, including fisheries control. The nationwide organisation of
           the CP/GC also contains a peripheral structure, comprising the network of harbour
           offices distributed along the Italian coast within 13 Maritime Directions (Direzioni
           Marittime). For each Maritime Direction there is an operative command centre for
           the area (Comando Operativo di Zona Maritima, hereafter CO.Zo.Ma), directly
           supervised by the CGCP. There are 48 harbour master offices (Capitanerie di Porto),
           47 secondary maritime offices (Uffici Circondariali Marittimi), 138 local maritime
           offices and 131 so called delegations (Delegazioni di Spaggia). In addition to the
           general role that it plays in its own administration, the CGCP acts, as regards
           fisheries, as an interface between DGPA and the network of authorities involved in
           fisheries control.

           Within the CGCP a specific national centre has been created for the purpose of
           fisheries control (Centro di Controllo della Pesca), instituted in 199825, changed to
           the National Centre for Fisheries Control (Centro Nazionale di Controllo della



     23
          Sea Fishing Law, and legislative decrees N° 143 of 4 June 1997 and N° 300 of 30 July 1999.
     24
          Law N° 41 of 17 February 1982.
     25
          Presidential Decree N° 424 of 9 November 1998.



EN                                                    134                                              EN
             Pesca, hereafter CCNP) in 199926. The CCNP, in consultation with the DGPA,
             issues annual directives and is in charge of the Italian VMS For the adoption of the
             Sixth National Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000-200227, a Monitoring and
             Inspection Plan was drafted and adopted by the DGPA and CCNP

             Until the end of 2002, the CP/GC did not designate any internal inspection units with
             specific responsibility for fisheries control. On the contrary, all the officers within
             this body of authorities can potentially be involved in fisheries monitoring and
             control operations. A Central Nucleus of Fisheries Inspectors (Nucleo Centrale di
             Inspectori della Pesca, hereafter NCIP) was instituted within the Harbour
             Offices/Coast Guards administration in 200228 and will include 40 officials split
             between the CGCP and the CO.Zo.Ma Maritime Directions. The tasks of the NCIP
             will be, inter alia, to assist the Commission inspectors during visits or inspections, to
             control the Italian fishing fleet operating outside Italian waters and to participate to
             international fishing control activities.

             Surveillance of fishing activities in the strict sense and of the marketing of its
             products, as well as discovery of violation of the laws and regulation regarding them,
             are entrusted29 to the civil and military personnel of the central or peripheral
             administration of the Harbour Offices/Coast Guard Corps, the Customs, the
             Carabinieri, the State Police, and of the regional and local polices forces, under the
             direction of the Harbour Masters. These agents are invested with the power of
             officers or agents of judicial police. The landing controls in the Italian ports of the
             fish transhipped on cargo vessels within the frameworks of the ACP agreements are
             the responsibility of Italian customs authorities. Some fisheries control activities are
             also carried out by the regional and provincial authorities. However, the staff and
             patrol vessels of these authorities are not assigned solely to fisheries monitoring.

     2.2.    Powers of control

             The officials empowered to carry out fisheries monitoring and control are allowed30
             at any given moment to board fishing vessels, to enter fisheries-related private
             premises, notably places where fish is being stored or sold, and to check the different
             means of transport utilised for fisheries products with the aim of ensuring the
             observance of regulation in force. All authorities empowered to carry out fisheries
             control also have the powers to initiate an infringement procedure. They may carry
             out seizure of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, fish products and fishing gear.

     2.3.    Follow up of infringements

             The system in place in Italy for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is a mixed one,
             providing for administrative sanctions for certain infringements and sanctioning
             through criminal procedure for others. Infringements and the sanctions to be applied
             are defined in the Sea Fishing Law31.


     26
            Circular N° 6235943 of 12 May 1999.
     27
            Ministerial Decree of 25 May 2000.
     28
            Ministerial decree of 12 September 2002.
     29
            Article 21 of the Sea Fishing Law.
     30
            Article 23 of the Sea Fishing Law.
     31
            Articles from 24 to 27 of the Sea Fishing Law.



EN                                                      135                                              EN
           Penal sanctions32 are foreseen for a number of offences,33 such as fishing for, storing,
           transporting and selling of undersize fish or protected species, damaging of marine
           resources by fishing with explosives, electric energy or toxic substances, as well as
           the collection, transport or selling of marine organisms fished in this way, removing
           or taking without consent the marine organisms resulting from someone else’s
           fishing activities, as well as removing or taking fishing gear, and fishing in the
           waters under another state’s jurisdiction without the proper authorisation. The penal
           sanctions consist of prison sentences from 1 month to 2 years and/or fines ranging
           from € 500 to € 6,000. Accessory sanctions34 are provided for, consisting of
           confiscation of catch and gear and the obligation to restore damaged areas. Licences
           can be withdrawn for up to one month, and increased to six months in the event of
           repeat offences.

           Administrative sanctions35 are applied to certain infringements36 such as fishing
           during prohibited periods or in prohibited areas, fishing more than the authorised
           quantities, fishing without licence or with unregistered vessels and fishing with
           prohibited gear. Also obstruction of inspections can be sanctioned by administrative
           procedure, unless the obstruction is sufficiently serious to constitute a criminal
           offence. Accordingly, the majority of infringements detected in Italy falls within the
           categories to which administrative sanctions apply. The sanctions consist of fines
           ranging from € 100 to € 3,000. Accessory sanctions in the form of confiscation of
           fish and gear and the obligation to restore areas and resources that have been
           damaged are provided for37. Licences can not be withdrawn through administrative
           procedure.

           Regardless of whether criminal or administrative procedure is used, the starting point
           is always the drawing up of a processo verbale (PV) by the officers detecting the
           infringement. In the case of criminal procedure, the PV is sent directly to the
           prosecutor and the case will be heard in the court under which jurisdiction the illegal
           event took place. If the infringement is to be dealt with through administrative
           procedure, the next step is to notify the offender of the case against him and to invite
           him to present his defence. The defence shall be submitted in writing within 30 days
           to the competent authority, which in most fisheries cases is the Capitaneria di Porto.
           He may request to be heard in the matter.

           As an alternative the offender may conclude the matter by paying a standard penalty
           sum within 60 days of the notification. The size of the amount is established by law38
           and consists of either a third of the maximum fine prescribed for the infringement in
           question, or the double of the minimum fine provided for, whichever sum is the most
           favourable to the offender. The standard amount will in most cases be situated
           around € 1,000.




     32
          Article 24 of the Sea Fishing Law
     33
          Article 15, paragraphs c, d, e and f, of the Fishing Law.
     34
          Article 25 of the Fishing Law.
     35
          Article 26 of the Fishing Law.
     36
          Article 15, paragraphs a and b of the Fishing Law
     37
          Article 27 of the Fishing Law.
     38
          Article 16 of the Law N° 689 of 1981.



EN                                                      136                                           EN
            On the basis on the report and the arguments submitted in defence, or if a defence
            has not been submitted or if a voluntary payment has not been made, the competent
            authority will take its decision. At the same time a decision must be taken concerning
            any objects that have been seized (e.g. catch or gear), i.e. whether they shall be
            confiscated or returned to the offender.

            Appeals in criminal cases are made to the next level in the judiciary system, while
            appeals in administrative cases are heard in a civil law court, with the sanctioning
            authority entering the procedure as a party. There is a considerable difference
            between the criminal and the administrative procedure in respect of handling times,
            where administrative cases are normally decided within six to twelve months, while
            criminal cases can take up to five years to be decided.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            In accordance with the fisheries financial program of the 4th Three Year Plan, the
            total amount allocated for fisheries control during each of the years 2000 – 2002 was
            € 1,652,662. However, the Italian authorities have emphasised that this amount is
            subject to complex evaluations concerning both the variable use of the means
            available and the different way in which the various authorities involved operate in
            practice. Of this amount, according to Italian authorities, the largest part is assigned
            to Maritime Directorates and Airborne Units.

     3.2.   Human resources

            For administrative tasks relating to statistics and the fleet register, the DGPA
            allocates 62 persons of which two officials and five agents are based in the DGPA
            head office, 12 in the CO.Zo.Ma Maritime Directions and 43 in the harbour offices.

            The Harbour Offices/Coast Guard administration employs about 9,650 officials, of
            whom 1 194 officers are based within the central structure in Rome or the peripheral
            structure. About 2,000 of these officials may be involved in monitoring at sea, and
            further 3,000 may carry out inspections on shore. Within the harbour offices each
            officer is empowered to carry out inspections and may therefore potentially be
            involved in fisheries monitoring operations.

     3.3.   Other resources

            From 2000 to 2002, the Harbour Masters/Coast Guards Corps deployed, for fisheries
            surveillance, between 285 and 288 patrol vessels operating from 112 maritime bases.
            These vessels are assigned to the Marine District Operating Commands, which
            manage and use them in accordance with the General Command instructions. They
            can use 15 planes and 8 helicopters, operating from the aerial bases of Sarzana-Luni,
            Catania and Pescara. However, these means are engaged in a wide range of control
            activities and not only in fisheries control.

            The Arma dei Carabinieri has a total of 164 vessels operating from 104 maritime
            bases. The Customs has a total of 334 vessels in its 54 maritime bases. The State
            Police has a total of 153 vessels located in 37 maritime bases.


EN                                               137                                                   EN
     3.4.    Financial aid program

             During the period 2000-2002, the Community financial contribution allocated to
             Italy for fisheries control was as follows (in €):

                 2000                                  2001                       2002

              1,267,903                             2,527,203                  2,054,864

             The main projects realised over the 2000 programme were the acquisition of coastal
             patrol boats, two Class 800-vessels as well as electronic equipment to link computer
             systems. Further expenditure over the 2001 programme was for training purposes.
             About 39 training courses were arranged at the Navy’s training institutes, and 1,100
             individuals attended these.


     4.      MONITORING

     4.1.    Control database

             The first regulation39 covering technical measures for the conservation of fishery
             resources in the Mediterranean area came into force on 1 January 1995. This
             regulation contains transitional measures up to 2002. In addition, Italy was exempted
             until 1 January 200040, with regards to Mediterranean fisheries (bluefin tuna
             excepted), from the obligations of catch and landing declarations by means of the EC
             logbook.

             Until 2002, with the exception of bluefin tuna fishery, Italy did not manage a catch or
             effort registration database as prescribed in the Control Regulation. However, for
             aggregation and statistical purposes, in accordance with national regulation41, sales
             data were collected by the staff of DGPA working in the harbour offices and sent
             directly to the National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT).

             In accordance with Community rules implementing ICCAT recommendations, the
             Italian authorities have implemented a catch registration system for bluefin tuna
             fishery42. This system consists of the compulsory completion of a specific logbook
             and landing declaration. The landing declarations have to be submitted to the landing
             harbour office and then transmitted monthly to the DGPA.

             In 2001, the Italian authorities began to distribute the EC logbooks. However, this
             distribution was not totally achieved at the end of 2002.

     4.2.    VMS

             The Italian Fishing Monitoring Centre (FMC) is located in the General Command of
             the Harbour Offices in Rome, and 13 slave stations have been placed in the


     39
            Council Regulation (EC) N° 1626/94.
     40
            Article 40 of Control Regulation N° 2847/93.
     41
            Law of 17 February 1982.
     42
            Decree of 14 January 1999



EN                                                     138                                             EN
             CO.Zo.Ma. Maritime Directions. Approximately 600 vessels have been fitted with
             VMS equipment.

             In line with the Control Regulation, the Italian national authorities have established a
             satellite based monitoring system (VMS) to monitor the positions of the Italian
             fishing vessels for which the Community requirements are applicable. In accordance
             with the said Community regulation, they have adopted technical and operational
             measures to ensure that the VMS is fully operational and provided staff in order to
             serve the FMC and the 13 slave stations. Also, as required, a comprehensive list of
             co-ordinates which delimit its EEZ has been transmitted, and facility for remote
             access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files containing the data
             recorded by the FMC can be provided. The national authorities have implemented a
             control methodology to monitor vessels with a VMS derogation in order to ensure
             compliance with the Community requirements. National regulation43 stipulates that
             all vessels exceeding 12 meters must install VMS if they want to receive financial
             aid from the State.


     5.      INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.    Waters under the Italian sovereignty or jurisdiction

             Due to the progressive implementation of the prohibition to catch highly migratory
             species with driftnet, and the execution of the Italian driftnet fleet conversion
             programme, the control, monitoring and identification of the involved vessels was
             one of the main control activities carried out from 2000 to 2002 by the Italian
             inspection authorities and the officials of the DGPA

             Italy also reported inspection activities concerning the observance of the restricted
             areas, whatever the gear used, but mainly with regards to trawlers within the 3
             nautical miles or the 50 meters of depth, the temporary coastal and seasonal fishing
             activities as the Alphia minuta fishery, the coastal mollusc fishery, the gillnet fishery,
             the use of illegal fishing methods and gear, and in general the observance of the
             administrative requirements to exert sea fishing, and in particular the holding of a
             fishing licence.

     5.2.    International waters and third country waters

             From 2000 to 2002, the Italian authorities implemented annual national inspection
             programmes and joint inspection programmes with Greek authorities in order to
             monitor the Italian driftnet fleet in international waters and in the vicinity of the
             Greek coast. Commission inspectors participated to these programmes.

             Following the implementation of national regulation44 and administrative procedures
             for the management of the bluefin tuna quota in accordance with Community rules,
             specific administrative tasks were carried out in order to identify the vessels involved
             in bluefin tuna fishery.



     43
            Ministerial decree of 30 August 2001.
     44
            Decree of 14 January 1999.



EN                                                  139                                                   EN
     5.3.   Landings

            Since 1998, following the obligation to declare the catches of bluefin tuna, Italy has
            implemented a landing declaration procedure which involves the harbour offices and
            the DGFA. The subsequent control activities concern the authorisation to participate
            to the fishery, the observance of the minimum size of the fish, the verification of the
            quantities declared and the respect of the declaration procedures.

            Concerning other species the Italian authorities reported control activities concerning
            landings of molluscs, protected species and undersize fish or fish products not
            meeting the marketing standards.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The Italian authority reported a significant number of inspections carried out in
            markets at different sale level but did not report any separate information concerning
            transport control activities.

     5.5.   Information on inspection and surveillance activity

            According to the annual reports transmitted by the Italian authorities to the
            Commission for the years 2000-2002, the inspection activities were mainly carried
            out by the Harbour Masters/Coast Guard and the Carabinieri, and to a smaller extent
            by the Customs. According to the Italian authorities, even if the Harbour
            Masters/Coast Guard bear the main responsibility for fisheries control, the
            Carabinieri appear to have performed considerably more inspections at sea than the
            Harbour Masters/Coast Guard.

            The Italian control authorities (Harbour Masters/Coast Guard and the Carabinieri)
            carried out 53,251 shore inspections/controls in 2000 and 46,361 in 2001. They
            carried out 15,275 (2000) and 35,605 (2001) controls at landing or in distribution and
            sales. Furthermore 8,159 (2000) and 18,540 (2001) of the controls concerned fishing
            gear and vessels.

            At sea, the number of controls were 39,465 (2000) and 53,442 (2001). In addition
            there were 861 (2000) and 197 (2001) fisheries monitoring missions by aerial means.
            These activities resulted in 1,954 and 3,643 infringement notifications respectively,
            as well as 7,259 (2000) and 9,576 (2001) reports of administrative irregularities. It
            should be noted that between 2000 and 2001 the Italian authorities changed the
            format for reporting on inspection activities, so that it is no longer possible to
            compare the output of the different authorities involved.

            No such statistics were provided for the year 2002.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Community rules Italian authorities reported the detection of
            1,105 serious infringements in 2000, 1,628 in 2001 and 1,074 in 2002, involving up
            to fourteen types of behaviour. Among the most frequent types of behaviour were
            unauthorised fishing (D5), not meeting the marketing standards (F2), fishing without
            holding a licence (C1) and using or holding on board prohibited gear (D1).



EN                                               140                                                  EN
            In 2001, an administrative procedure was initiated in 1,258 cases, a penal procedure
            in 304 cases and both administrative and penal in 2 cases. A penalty was applied in
            1,564 cases. The average amount of the penalty for 1,143 cases was € 1,350, ranging
            from € 3,665 for not meeting the marketing standards (F2) to € 57 for not complying
            with rules on transmission of movements of fishing vessels (E3). In addition, fishing
            gear or catches were seized in 1,095 cases, of which 429 cases of unauthorised
            fishing (D5) and 222 cases for not meeting the marketing standards. Fishing licences
            were withdrawn in 4 cases.

            In 2002, in 112 cases an administrative procedure was launched, in 7 cases criminal
            proceedings and in 1 case both criminal and administrative procedures. Penalties
            were imposed in 1,025 cases. The average fine in 791 cases was € 1,691 ranging
            from € 2,186 for unauthorised fishing (D5) to € 61 for falsifying of the data required
            in the control documents (E1). In addition, Italy ordered the seizure of catches and
            gear in 611 cases, including 276 cases of unauthorised fishing (D5) and 105 of using
            or holding on board of prohibited gear (D1). No licence withdrawals were reported.

            With regards to the driftnet fishery, 45 infringements concerning spadare and
            ferretarra were detected, mostly for exceeding length of net, and resulted in 45,320
            meters of net being seized.


     6.     COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            Given the administrative structures adopted by Italy for fisheries control, co-
            ordination and co-operation are essential elements. Successive measures have been
            taken, notably in order to better co-ordinate the competencies of the DGPA and the
            Harbour Masters/Coast Guard Corps.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            Joint programmes with Greek inspection authorities were carried to monitor and
            control the Italian drift net fleet in international waters off the Greek coast.

            According to the Italian annual report for 2001, there is a willingness to participate in
            inspection programmes with other Mediterranean Member States. In addition, there
            is an identified growing need to conclude fisheries agreements and to establish
            technical, scientific and administrative co-operation with a number of non-member
            Mediterranean countries (Croatia, Tunisia etc.) in whose waters Italian vessels fish.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            The monitoring and control of the Italian fisheries is a complex matter, since they
            involve a large coastal and middle waters fleet – the second in number of vessels and
            fishermen in the European Union – using a wide range of fishing gear, catching
            numerous species and landing at a high number of landing points.

            In accordance with the Control Regulation, Italy has implemented a control system
            for fishing activities. The national legislation and the administrative structures


EN                                               141                                                    EN
     provide a framework for the implementation and enforcement of the CFP. The
     Ministry of Agriculture, mainly through DGPA, has the overall responsibility for
     fisheries management and, in particular, for fisheries control programmes and co-
     ordination, but does not have a special fisheries inspection service under its direct
     command. The CGCP is responsible at operational level for co-ordination, direction
     and execution of control activities, also involving other bodies competent in this
     field, such as Carabinieri, Italian Navy, Customs, State Police and veterinary
     services. The competencies assumed by these administrations are in line with the
     Control Regulation requirements.

     The peripheral structure of the Harbour Offices is particularly well adapted to the
     specificity of Italian fisheries. However, despite successive measures taken to create
     additional administrative structures in order to improve the co-ordination between
     the DGPA and the CGCP, weaknesses in the collaboration and heavy administrative
     procedures between them significantly reduce the efficiency of the whole system.
     Italian authorities grant that, if the results achieved up to date are satisfactory, there
     remain problem with co-ordination between different inspection bodies involved.

     Up to 2002, the Harbour Master Corps did not designate an internal unit with specific
     responsibility for fisheries control and monitoring. The lack of such a body appears
     to be a major weakness in the structure, despite the fact that potentially all Coast
     Guard and Harbours Master staff can take part in fisheries monitoring and control
     operations. This is accentuated by the fact that these two bodies are involved in many
     other tasks and suffer a lack of the necessary knowledge to properly carry out
     fisheries control. To compensate for it, a Central Nucleus of Fisheries Inspectors was
     created at the end of 2002 and training sessions have been organised from 2000
     within the Harbour Master Corps.

     Italian authorities have implemented legal and administrative instruments to manage
     the fishing fleet capacity. However, since fishing licence can be issued for several
     fishing methods, the segmentation in place, according to the MAGP IV requirements,
     does not fully reflect the actual activity of the fleet. In consequence, there is at
     present no appropriate instrument to ensure the management of the fleet activities
     according to fishing opportunities. This polyvalence, due to Mediterranean
     characteristics and seasonal activities, is not in question. However, in case of
     polyvalence, the fishing gear actually used should be clarified. Italy has introduced a
     succession of national measures to direct the development of the fleet structure. The
     exact relation between these national measures and MAGP IV remains however to be
     assessed, as the complexity of the Italian allocation of the vessels into MAGP IV
     segments has been accentuated by continuous procedures of modifying this
     segmentation rather fundamentally.

     Italian authorities were late in establishing a satellite based monitoring system in line
     with the Control Regulation, but at the end of 2002 the system was for the most part
     operational. The accuracy of the system, in terms of the number of vessels to be
     equipped, remains linked to the accuracy of the national fleet register. Also certain
     supplementary measures in order to guarantee a full enforcement of the system
     remain to be taken, such as provisions to sanction deliberate tampering with VMS
     equipment. Furthermore the obligation to manually transmit positions in case of
     technical failure or non-functioning of the device does not appear to be enforced by
     the Italian authorities.


EN                                         142                                                    EN
     The first Community regulation on technical measures for the conservation of fishery
     resources in the Mediterranean area came into force on 1 January 1995. This
     regulation contains transitional measures up to 2002. According to the Control
     Regulation, Italy was exempted until 1 January 2000, with regards to Mediterranean
     fisheries (bluefin tuna excepted), from the obligation to declare catches and landings
     by means of the EC logbook. This has had a clear negative effect on the development
     of control measures by the Italian administration. EC logbooks have been distributed
     to the fishing vessels concerned, but the catch registration system is not yet properly
     implemented (except for the bluefin tuna).

     The prevailing situation, with a large amount of landing ports, no requirement to pre-
     notify landings, ports with no auction facilities and no obligation to sell through
     auctions, means that landing controls will continue to be a problem. This conclusion
     appears to be valid for all species, but particularly for bluefin tuna, a species subject
     to quota. The obvious result is that only a very small proportion of landings are
     checked. With regards to enforcement of the minimum size of the fish, the inspection
     authorities have applied national legislation allowing a 10% of undersize fish, which
     is not in compliance with the Community rules.

     Following the observations gathered in 2002 by its fisheries inspectors, the
     Commission has still doubts, at the end of 2002, in the efficiency of the compulsory
     conversion programme implemented by Italy to oblige the remaining “Spadare”
     vessels to respect the driftnet ban in force since 1st January 2002.

     The number of reported detected infringements is rather small in relation to the total
     fishing activities carried out by the Italian fleet. Administrative procedure is used in
     the majority of cases, which from the point of view of handling time is considerably
     more efficient than criminal procedure, where handling times can be up to five years.
     The average fines are more or less on the level of the general average in the Member
     States as a whole. The maximum fines according to national legislation are however
     fairly modest, namely € 3,000 for most infringements. Furthermore, the possibility to
     make a voluntary payment and thereby avoid a formal decision by the competent
     authority, which appears to be frequently used, means that the fines are situated at
     the lower end of the available range. In practice the fines imposed after a formal
     sanction decision do also appear to coincide with what would be the amount of the
     voluntary payment.

     This system naturally contributes to a certain predictability and homogeneity of
     fines. Voluntary payments also result in reduced handling times. The downside is
     that, if the level of fine is perceived as sufficiently low or moderate, there will be a
     temptation to use this opportunity to “buy” oneself free and that the fines just
     become a normal cost of operations. Against this background, it is doubtful whether
     the fines imposed are on a deterrent level.

     Regarding bottom trawling and fishing for bluefin tuna with purse seines or long-
     lines, the Italian authorities have not adopted any specific monitoring or control
     programs. The inspections at sea are in practice carried out on an ad hoc basis when
     deemed necessary, during routine patrols programmed monthly by the CO.Zo.Ma.
     centres. Monitoring of fisheries is however only one of the tasks during these patrols.




EN                                        143                                                    EN
     The monitoring and control of the Italian oceanic vessels is primarily carried out by
     means of documentary investigations in the Fisheries Directorate. No physical
     checks of these vessels have taken place during the recent years.

     Through the annual report submitted, the Italian authorities have provided substantial
     information on the control activities carried out. Comparison between years,
     particularly as regards the relative importance of the different authorities involved, is
     however made difficult due to changes in the format of reporting. Furthermore it is
     not specified if and to what extent control activities are directed at recreational
     fisheries. Against that background, and taking into account the observations made by
     Commission inspectors in the relevant period, the available information does not
     permit to assess Italy’s enforcement of the CFP applicable in the Mediterranean Sea
     as being satisfactory.




EN                                        144                                                    EN
                                      NETHERLANDS

     1.     SCOPE OF FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            The Dutch fishing fleet contains some of the most modern and powerful vessels
            operating in EU waters. Traditionally its main area of operation is the North Sea.
            Dutch vessels have proportionally the largest EU TAC’s for flat-fish in ICES Area
            IV. The pelagic freezer trawler fleet operates throughout the Northern Atlantic and
            notably in waters off the west African coast. The national fleet is highly organised
            and motivated and the fisheries industry contributes significantly to the economy in
            coastal areas.

            The Netherlands also continues to sustain a large number of vessels connected with
            artisinal fisheries in its coastal and inland waterways.

     1.1.   Fleet

            Demersal fisheries are carried out by a fleet of powerful beam trawlers (cutters) who
            fish almost exclusively in the North Sea. The pelagic fisheries involve a limited
            number of company owned freezer trawlers operating extensively in NEAFC
            Regions 1, 2 and 3 and in Third Country waters.

            For the period 2000 to 2002 the Dutch fleet’s capacity (according to MAGP IV
            assessment) decreased from 860 vessels with a total of 455,168.50 kW and tonnage
            of 188,659.18 GT (ICT69) to 725 vessels with 404,053.90 kW and tonnage of
            177,333.64 GT. This represents an overall decrease of 15.7% in the number of
            vessels, 6% for total tonnage and 11.2% for fleet engine power.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            Besides fishing opportunities available in EU waters the Dutch fleet also benefits
            from agreements concluded by the Commission with Third Countries and also from
            ‘private’ agreements in Mauritanian and Moroccan waters. In 2001 the initial global
            quota for the Dutch fleet was 345,233 tonnes, the most important commercial species
            being cod (9,390 tonnes), sole (14,695 tonnes), plaice (29,440 tonnes), mackerel
            (47,390 tonnes), horse mackerel (86,070 tonnes), blue whiting (48,995 tonnes) and
            herring (78,736 tonnes). On average the Dutch fleet took nearly 95% of the
            individual quotas allocated to them. These figures accounted for 91% of the total
            national TAC.

            The Dutch authorities manage their available fishing opportunities in two ways – by
            quota restrictions and by the allocation of days at sea. However, fundamental to the
            system is the devolution of certain responsibilities in the management of fishing
            opportunities to the industry itself. This is done by the allocation of quota and fishing
            effort to the various catching sectors (the so called ‘Groups’ – for a detailed
            explanation see section 1.3.) based on vessel track records of catches, days at sea and
            engine power.




EN                                               145                                                    EN
              The Fisheries Directorate allocates quota/days at sea to individual vessels at the
              beginning of the year. The catchers belonging to a ‘Group’ then bring all their
              individual fishing opportunities into one collective allocation. Based on the available
              fishing opportunities the ‘Groups’ then agree a catch plan for the year. Therefore, the
              onus is on the industry to regulate itself for the purpose of management of the
              catches available. This includes the possibility for vessels to rent or swap quota/days
              within the ‘Group’, and there are also possibilities for swaps of quota and fishing
              effort with other ‘Groups’.

     1.3.     National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

              The authority with primary responsibility for the implementation of fisheries
              conservation and management policies is the Fisheries Directorate. The Dutch
              fishing fleet is subject to registration and licensing as obliged by Law, Royal Decree
              and Ministerial Order. The Fisheries Directorate is designated the ‘lead’ organisation
              for management of the fleet register, licences, the global management of quota and
              catch registration.

              Nearly all vessels are placed in one of the eight co-management ‘Groups’ – the
              Biesheuvelgroep (BHG). This dates back to 1992, when the Dutch authorities and the
              fishing industry agreed a system of co-operation for the management and control of
              fishing activities. The main features of this system is the introduction of a scheme
              establishing transferable individual fishing rights on a company/vessel basis, the
              formation of producer groups for management purposes as well as internal
              control/sanctioning measures to be adopted by each ‘Group’.

              Those vessels not included in the ‘Groups’ are subject to quota and days at sea
              restrictions as decided by the Fisheries Directorate.

              Catch registration in the Netherlands is a joint responsibility for the Fisheries
              Directorate and the AID. For reasons of quota management, catch registration and
              quota uptake both of these authorities are linked to the Fishery Registration and
              Information System – VIRIS II (see Section 4.1). This system collates all catch
              information necessary for control purposes.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled.

     1.4.1.   Waters under Dutch sovereignty or jurisdiction

              Control by the Netherlands fisheries administration involves the surveillance of 370
              km of coastline and the national EEZ of 56,462 km² in the North Sea.

              The number of vessels in the Dutch fleet is relatively small, but most are modern
              constructions with powerful engines. The majority of vessels, in respect of the fleet’s
              effective catching capacity, consist of beam trawlers which, depending on engine
              power, operate both inside and outside the national 12 mile limits. Apart from the
              cutter fleet the Netherlands has a fleet of smaller vessels fishing with both towed and
              passive gear inside the national limits. A significant number of vessels fish
              exclusively for shrimp, shellfish, mussels and fresh water fish in inshore and inland
              waters.




EN                                                 146                                                  EN
              In addition to the Dutch fleet there is considerable fishing activity inside the national
              EEZ by vessels from other Member States. These consist mainly of vessels from
              Belgium, Germany, Denmark and the UK. There is also the occasional presence of a
              few Norwegian beam trawlers.

     1.4.2.   Other Community, International waters and Third country waters

              In 2002 the Dutch deep-sea fleet consisted of 18 pelagic freezer trawlers which were
              engaged mainly in fisheries outside the Dutch EEZ, in EU, international and Third
              country waters. Depending on the fishing area these Dutch freezer vessels also
              tranship/discharge catches in Mauritanian waters or in Las Palmas in the Gran
              Canaria.

              In the North Sea the cutter fleet fished in UK, Belgian, German, Danish and
              Norwegian waters.

     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              The Dutch authorities designate 16 ports for landings of demersal fish, and in
              addition 10 other ports are authorised for the landing of shrimps. Landings from the
              pelagic freezer trawler fleet are restricted almost exclusively to IJmuiden and
              Scheveningen. Demersal landings are carried out in all designated ports with an
              emphasis on discharges on Thursdays and Fridays.

              In the period 2000 to 2002 a total of 81,744 landings took place. Of these, 82% were
              made by Dutch vessels. The remainder were divided between Belgian, German,
              British and to a lesser extent Danish, French and Irish vessels.

              The main target species of the Dutch beam trawler fleet is plaice and sole. The main
              target species for the Dutch pelagic fleet is herring, mackerel and horse mackerel.
              The coastal and inshore fleet lands mainly shrimp, mussels and eel and assorted
              ‘sweet water’ species.

              The Dutch fleet does not prosecute any industrial fisheries and there are no industrial
              fishmeal plants in the Netherlands.

              A considerable amount of the fish (approximately 16%) placed for sale on the Dutch
              auctions is landed direct by other Member State vessels or is discharged in other
              Member States and then transported to the Netherlands.

     1.4.4.   Marketing, processing and transport

              There are 9 main auction centres in the Netherlands and all the main processors are
              based in the nearby coastal communities. There are approximately 225 large
              companies involved with processing fishery products – these include companies
              involved with aquaculture.

              The Commodity Board for Fish (PVV) is responsible for monitoring EC market
              regulations and its agents are present in each public auction. The PVV is also
              involved with the supervision of the Co-Management groups.




EN                                                 147                                                    EN
            The AID has responsibility for checking transport documentation for fish arriving by
            lorry at the auctions or delivered direct to the processors.

            In the Netherlands there are 10 recognised Producer Organisations (PO’s). Six of
            these are involved with sea fisheries, three in the shellfish fisheries and one deals
            solely with the inland fishery on the IJsselmeer.

            LASER (a Directorate within the Ministry) is the national authority involved with the
            implementation of EC marketing regulations and market support measures. LASER
            mandates the PVV for monitoring EC marketing standards in the auctions but
            remains responsible for the reimbursement of the PO’s concerning fish withdrawn
            from the market.

            As explained in 1.4.3. above, a substantial amount of fish sold on the auctions is
            sourced from vessels from other Member States, i.e. landed directly in Dutch ports or
            transported from other countries. The auctions of Urk, IJmuiden, Lauwersoog,
            Scheveningen, Vlissingen and Breskens all receive fish transported over land. The
            main species are whiting from France, cod and sole from Denmark, whiting, cod and
            sole from the UK and sole from Belgium.

            A large percentage of this landed/overlanded fish is from Dutch owned but German,
            Belgium, UK or Norwegian ‘flagged’ vessels. Another source of fish on the auctions
            is that consigned as ‘second sale’, and the UK and Denmark is identified as the
            origin of much of this overland trade.

            There is no information on the quantities of fish which is supplied direct to the
            processors.


     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The main Dutch legislative instrument is the Fisheries Act of 1963 which was last
            amended in 1999. Pursuant to this law, secondary legislation can be authorised by
            Royal Decree. More specifically, the relevant control authorities are empowered to
            adopt general administrative orders. This is in particular intended for Community
            regulations and regulations of other international bodies.

            The most important piece of such secondary legislation is the Order on Sea and
            Coastal Fisheries, originally adopted in 1977 and later amended. This order contains
            notably an authorization for further delegation of normative power, and the relevant
            minister has been granted powers to issue implementation rules by ministerial
            decree. A considerable number of these ministerial orders have been adopted for
            various purposes.

            The Fisheries Act defines a number of general enforcement powers available to
            fishery inspectors. However, in practice these powers are not extensively used in
            fishery investigations because the competencies granted by the Law on Economic
            Offences, which are also applicable to fisheries inspectors, are more practical and
            convenient.



EN                                              148                                                 EN
            The authority primarily responsible for the implementation of fisheries conservation
            and management policies is the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and
            Fisheries (the Ministry) which was located in The Hague. Within the Ministry, the
            Fisheries Directorate has been designated the ‘lead’ organisation for general
            management purposes i.e. the fleet register, licensing, quota management and the
            collation of catch statistics. The monitoring of compliance with fisheries legislation
            is entrusted to the General Inspection Service (the AID) and its headquarters are
            situated in Kerkrade and it has three regional inspection offices.

            In respect of fleet structure the source of data concerning fishing vessel
            characteristics is received from the national Ship Inspection Agency which
            undertakes the physical inspection and certification of fishing vessels.

            The PVV and LASER (see 1.4.4.) monitor compliance with EC fisheries marketing
            regulations.

     2.2.   Powers of control

            Fisheries inspectors of the AID are designated as enforcement officers under Article
            142 of the Code of Criminal Procedures and Article 17 of the Law on Economic
            Offences. Based on these designations enforcement officers have full powers of
            control, inspection and investigation, comparable to those of the police forces.

            These powers permit them, for example, to remove materials needed to establish an
            infringement, to enter and inspect private premises and copy any necessary
            documents. Inspectors can enter any office or factory connected with fishery matters,
            take samples, demand that lorries/vessels stop in order for them to investigate, set up
            roadblocks on public highways and waterways and to demand total co-operation in
            their inspection activities. If necessary the AID inspectors can, in certain
            circumstances, also detain people suspected of committing infringements.

     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The system for sanctioning infringement of the CFP is based primarily on criminal
            procedure. Sea fishery offences are considered economic offences, and as such they
            are regulated by the Economic Offences Act.

            For the definition of fisheries infringements, the Economic Offences Act refers back
            to the Fisheries Act and states that offences against any provisions based on the
            relevant provisions in the Fisheries Act are economic offences, thus covering the
            whole spectrum of CFP rules. The basic rule is that Fisheries infringements fall
            under the category of minor offences (overtredingen), unless they are intentional in
            which case they are considered serious (misdrijven). There are a number of offences
            which are always treated as serious, notably a refusal to co-operate with inspectors or
            other obstruction of an official’s exercise of his duties. In principle the rules apply
            both to natural persons and corporate bodies. Conventional criminal law may also, at
            least theoretically, apply to fisheries infringements, e.g. in the case of forgery.

            When an infringement is discovered details are reported to the prosecutor’s office in
            the form of a written report called a ‘proces-verbaal’ (PV). The prosecutor’s office
            will then decide if the case is to proceed to the courts. The PV is also sent to the AID



EN                                               149                                                   EN
     administration for registration. Offences discovered at sea are first reported to the
     North Sea Prosecutors Office based at the Dutch Coast Guard centre in Den Helder.
     These cases are then distributed, by way of the North Sea Prosecutor in Zwolle, to
     different regional prosecutors. Dutch citizens are prosecuted in the court where they
     are domiciled, while for foreign subjects the prosecutor’s office in Amsterdam is the
     competent authority. In the case of an infringement by a foreign vessel the vessel will
     either be detained to a Dutch port for investigation and subsequent prosecution, or a
     PV is initiated and the facts reported back to the authorities of the flag Member State.

     Cases are decided in the first instance in the District Court
     (Arrondissementsrechtbank), normally with one judge presiding. An alternative to
     the case being decided by a court is the prosecutor’s possibility to suggest a
     settlement out of court, by compounding the infraction, i.e. set a fine that the
     offender shall pay and then close the case there and then. Compounding is a common
     feature in the Dutch prosecution system, used for clear cases within the scheme of
     the policy guidelines of the Public Prosecution.

     Fisheries offences are punishable with prison for maximum six months or a fine of
     the fourth category, which translates to a maximum fine of € 11,250. If the value of
     the goods relating to the offence (e.g. the catch of fish) exceeds 25 % of the above
     maximum fine, a fine of the fifth category may be imposed, for which the maximum
     is € 45,000. The latter maximum amount also applies to infringements committed by
     legal persons, and – if that maximum is not sufficient to provide adequate
     punishment – the maximum may be increased to the sixth category, 450,000 €. There
     is at the disposal of the prosecutors a list of tariffs that are to be followed when
     suggesting the fines to be set by the courts. The court is however by no means bound
     by this tariff or the prosecutor’s suggestion. The tariff is also used when deciding the
     amount of fine to be paid in the case of compounding.

     The alternative to issuing a PV is to issue a warning. There is no legal basis for these
     warnings, but they are commonly used nonetheless. A warning will have practical
     consequences if the offender commits a second infraction, in which case the previous
     warning will accompany the PV sent to the prosecutor. The warning is given orally
     on the spot, and then a written warning should follow within a week.

     Confiscation and forfeiture can be ordered in accordance with the Economic
     Offences Act, e.g. of gear and catch. Also the withdrawal of a licence or otherwise of
     a right to fish is an ancillary sanction in accordance with the Economic Offences Act.
     There is a possibility for the Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and
     Fisheries to withdraw the licence. The offender can appeal against this measure
     directly to the minister or to an Administrative Court. Due to the many possibilities
     to appeal and the lengthy procedure, the withdrawal of licences is not used in
     practice.

     The Biesheuvelgroeps and PO’s have, in principle, a role in sanctioning members
     whose vessels may have committed infringements against internal rules. The groups
     are responsible for enforcing their own management rules, and therefore there are
     sectoral penalties available for sanctioning of members that do not comply with the
     rules. The only infraction that is systematically followed up in this manner is failure
     to respect the duty to sell the fish over the auction. If that rule is not complied with,
     the board can sentence the member to pay a fine. Such a sanction can reach € 2,270.


EN                                        150                                                    EN
     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The AID has its own budget to cover all costs, material and personnel involved with
            fisheries control. However, the annual reports submitted by the Ministry to the
            Commission do not detail the actual budgetary costs incurred.

     3.2.   Human resources

            In 2002 there were a total of 56 AID inspectors employed, and these inspectors
            undertake control activity both ashore and at sea. Additionally, the AID annually
            contracts a private security company (for 11,300 hours in 2002) to assist the
            inspectors during landings in the ports. The main role of these support staff is to
            assist in the time consuming activity of monitoring the landings of the large freezer
            trawlers.

            The AID has an agreement with the PVV that they report instances of undersize fish
            on the auction floors.

            The Customs and Maritime Police services are also available to undertake controls at
            sea and in inland waters. Although in effect both these services would only make
            fishery controls as part of their general duties.

            The AID also calls upon other agencies to assist them in investigations where
            specialist knowledge is required e.g. the Fiscal investigations services.

     3.3.   Other resources

            Dutch Fishery Patrol Vessels (FPV’s) are available for monitoring and enforcement
            tasks both inside and outside the national 12 miles zone.

            Fisheries inspections at sea are carried out within the operational framework of the
            Dutch Coast Guard service. Dutch Royal Naval vessels of the ‘Alkmaar’ class and
            ‘Waker’, which belong to the Ministry of Transport, are the principal patrol
            platforms used within the Dutch EEZ. During patrols by these vessels AID inspectors
            are embarked. In 2001 the FPV ‘Barend Biesheuvel’ entered service, and this vessel
            has notably increased the effective resources available for maritime surveillance.
            Equipment onboard the ‘Barend Biesheuvel’ is electronically linked to the national
            control database systems.

            For inspections in inshore and coastal waters customs and police vessels are
            available. These vessels usually carry an AID inspector aboard.

            Aerial surveillance of the EEZ is undertaken by aircraft of the Naval Service and as
            with the FPV’s works within the operational framework of the Dutch Coast Guard.
            An AID inspector/observer is always present during flights for fisheries surveillance.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            For the period 2000-2002, the Netherlands received the following Community
            financial contribution for fisheries control (in €):



EN                                              151                                                  EN
                       2000                            2001                      2002

                    4.34 million                 1.30 million                 0.71 million

            Over the period the Netherlands continued with investment in and development of
            the Fisheries Information System (VIRIS II) and the ‘C-day’ system.

            The main project co-financed by the Community was the new FPV ‘Barend
            Biesheuvel’.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            Catch registration in the Netherlands is a joint responsibility of the Fisheries
            Directorate and the AID. Staff of the AID is responsible for the input of data into the
            catch registration system. For reasons of verification and monitoring of catches for
            individual vessel and national quota management and catch registration, both these
            authorities have access to the main database – the Fishery Registration and
            Information System (VIRIS II). Catch information received by the authorities is
            automatically processed and cross-checked. Cross-checks between EC Logbooks and
            VMS information are made manually. The system can produce data both by vessel or
            ‘Group’ showing the quantities caught. However, the AID is hampered by not having
            direct access to details of vessel allocations of quota and effort as internally agreed
            and distributed by the PO’s and ‘Groups’.

            Contained within VIRIS II is the Fleet Register (NVR), which contains the
            registration and technical characteristics of all the Dutch fishing vessels. The
            Fisheries Directorate is responsible for updating and maintaining this database based
            on information received from the Ship Inspection Agency.

            Since 2000 the AID has utilised information from the ‘SPIN’ and ‘C-day’ database
            systems. SPIN has replaced the previous COBRA system and contains all
            information concerning inspections carried out on vessels, businesses premises,
            auctions and individuals. It also records the follow-up when infringements have been
            detected. ‘C-day’ is used for the calculation of fishing effort and the uptake of days
            at sea by individual vessels or ‘Groups’.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the Dutch national authorities
            have established a satellite based vessel monitoring system (VMS) to monitor the
            position of Dutch fishing vessels. In total 202 Dutch vessels were involved with the
            scheme during the relevant period. The authorities only applied VMS to vessels with
            a registered length of overall 24 metres.

            The functions and staff of the FMC are in line with the requirements of the Control
            Regulation. FMC staff are not appointed fishery inspectors, but refer all investigative
            matters to a competent inspector in the Directorate or in one of the ports.




EN                                               152                                                  EN
            In light of there being no Community wide agreement of access to confidential data
            and technical access, remote contact by DG Fish to the computer files containing the
            data recorded by the FMC was not available. The Dutch authorities have been unable
            to provide a list of vessels exempted from the requirements of providing VMS.

            Failure of VMS equipment on board fishing vessels requires that vessels effect
            repairs within 30 days and in the interim period vessels have to submit 24 hourly
            manual position reports. However, these position reports are not entered into the
            database but are filed at the FMC. During the reference period the Dutch authorities
            reported no prosecutions as a result of interference with the VMS signal.

            The exchange of VMS data with Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the UK and
            Sweden takes place automatically.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Dutch sovereignty or jurisdiction

            In addition to Dutch vessels, the waters of the national EEZ (exclusively within ICES
            IVb and IVc) are fished intensively by vessels from several other Member States.
            During the period 2000 – 2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general EEZ
            (in particular the Plaice Box), the national 12, 6 and 3 mile limits in regard to access,
            technical measures and the enforcement of the emergency measures introduced
            during 2001 concerning cod.

            In the reference period some 343 man days were spent on maritime surveillance by
            officers of the AID. A total of 2,289 vessels were inspected and 821 infringements
            were detected. Aerial surveillance in the same period amounted to a total duration of
            743 flying hours. In 2001 there was a noticeable increase in surface and aerial
            activity which the AID has attributed to surveillance of the ‘closed areas’ for cod.

     5.2.   Other Community, International waters and Third country waters

            Dutch cutters operate in the adjoining waters of several Member States in the North
            Sea, notably Germany, the UK and Belgium. They also have an occasional presence
            in Danish and Norwegian waters. The pelagic freezer fleet also fishes in the southern
            North Sea and the south west approaches of ICES VII targeting mackerel, horse
            mackerel, herring and blue whiting where fishing opportunities exist.

            The control of Dutch activity in international and Third country waters is the
            responsibility of the AID and concerns only pelagic fisheries. In the period AID
            deployed both the ‘Barend Biesheuvel’ and the ‘Waker’ for patrols in NEAFC waters
            for a total of 6 weeks.

            The international and Third country pelagic fisheries involve a limited number of
            freezer trawlers operating extensively in northern NEAFC (ICES IIa), Moroccan and
            Mauritanian waters. The activities of these are monitored by the use of EC logbooks,
            landing declarations and VMS data. Protocols have also been established with the
            Spanish authorities for joint control activity on Dutch vessels which discharge
            catches in Gran Canaria.



EN                                               153                                                    EN
     5.3.   Landings

            Due to the landing pattern of the demersal fleet most discharges are made at the end
            of the week, i.e. Thursdays or Fridays and shore controls tend to be concentrated on
            those days.

            Discharges from the freezer trawlers always take place direct to private cold storage
            facilities and can take up to 5 days to complete. The privately contracted security
            staff assists in controls on the freezer landings, their main role being to check weigh
            and count boxes and also check their contents prior to transfer into the cold stores.

            The AID operates a methodical control of landings. Despite submitting their EC
            logsheets upon arrival in port, the fishermen still require authorisation from the AID
            to commence discharge. This procedure enables the inspectors to select the most
            relevant targets for landing inspections based on the perceived risk assessment of
            illegal activity occurring. EC logsheets and landing declarations are then cross-
            checked with the amount of fish placed on the auction floor. AID inspectors are
            present at all the major auctions when sales take place. There is a routine manual
            check on VMS data against EC logsheets, and VMS ‘slave’ stations are situated in
            the ports of IJmuiden, Vlissingen, Den Helder and Lauwersoog.

            As a further level of control the AID inspectors also undertake administrative checks
            on the records held by buyers and processors. Sales-notes are supplied electronically
            from each auction to the local AID office and these are cross checked against the EC
            logsheets.

            In line with the national control strategy the AID sets the following annual targets for
            inspection in the ports:

            •   25% of all discharges by pelagic freezer trawlers

            •   15 % of all the demersal landings by the beam trawler fleet

            •   1 administrative check on each processor

            Across the whole fleet 7.5% (6,137 by number) of landings were monitored from a
            total of 81,744 discharges during the reference period.

     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The PVV is designated responsible for monitoring EC market regulations and has
            officers present at each auction. However, these agents do not have investigative
            powers and therefore cannot take enforcement action to establish infringements. If an
            offence is suspected, the AID is informed and will take over the investigation.

            Before fish is displayed on the auction floor it is sorted and graded by size/freshness
            criteria and labelled accordingly. The PVV then verifies compliance with EC
            marketing standards. The AID inspectors check for minimum fish sizes and ensure
            that boxes are labelled with the details of the vessel from which they are discharged.

            The AID is responsible for checking transport documentation for fish arriving by
            lorry at the auctions or being delivered direct to buyers. In the ports where there is no


EN                                               154                                                    EN
            auction, fish is transported by lorry to the main selling centres – notably in Urk.
            Lorries transporting fish normally carry a copy of the EC logsheet for use as the
            official EC transport document. There are obvious difficulties to making an accurate
            assessment of the catch when it is discharged directly into a lorry. To overcome this,
            local AID inspectors make an approximate calculation of the catch and forward the
            information to the inspection service at the point of sale, so that the lorry can be fully
            monitored when unloading. Whilst there is no official AID programme for the
            control of transport documentation, such checks are regularly undertaken and can be
            based on the perceived risk of an offence occurring.

            In the reference period 2000 to 2002, the Dutch authorities reported 6 serious
            infringements concerning the stocking, processing, marketing and transport of
            fisheries products.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports transmitted to the Commission, inspection
            activities were mainly carried out by the services of the AID with the support of
            other Agencies as outlined in Section 2.2 above.

            The Dutch authorities reported that during the reference period 343 days were spent
            on maritime surface patrol, notably in 2001 for control in the North Sea closed areas
            for cod. In 2000 a total of 111 days were spent on patrol, detecting 296
            infringements, in 2001 there were 133 days at sea and 221 offences were discovered,
            and in 2002 99 days were spent at sea with 304 offences found.

            Aerial support for maritime patrols totalled 743 flying hours. A total of 2,289
            boardings were undertaken. In the ports 6,137 controls were made, which
            represented nearly 7.5 % of all landings. Of all offences detected, 664 resulted in
            PVs and 419 warnings were issued.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Community Regulations the Dutch authorities reported the
            detection of 488 serious infringements in the reference period (199 in 2000, 167 in
            2001 and 122 in 2002). These involved 15 different types of illegal activity. The
            most frequent infringements involved the falsification or failure to record data in
            control documents (E1) – 199 cases, landing undersized fish (D6) – 104 cases, fiscal
            fraud (F1) – 62 cases and unauthorised fishing (D5) – 33 cases.

            For the years 2001 and 2002 (figures for 2000 not available), penalties were imposed
            in 46 and 67 cases respectively. The average fine in 2001 was at € 653 (figure based
            on only 9 cases), and ranged from € 1,174 for unauthorized fishing (D5) to € 82 for
            falsification or failure to record data (E1). In 2002 the average fine was € 1,727
            (based on 33 cases) and ranged from € 310 for using prohibited fishing methods (D2)
            to € 5,590 for the use or retention aboard of prohibited gear (D1). In 2001 the
            Netherlands ordered the seizure of catch and/or gear in 40 cases, and the
            corresponding figure for 2002 was 50.

            No administrative sanctions were applied and no licence withdrawals were reported.




EN                                                155                                                    EN
     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            As part of the national control strategy the Ministry liaises with a number of other
            national authorities, notably the customs service, the Ship Inspection Agency, the tax
            administration, the police and the public prosecutors office.

            Additionally, the AID co-operated with the industry on the managerial issues
            involving fishing opportunities available to the BHG’s.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            The Ministry has a structure of co-operation with the control authorities of the UK,
            Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and Spain. Protocols are formalised
            for the flow of mutual information and the occasional exchange of inspection
            personnel.

            A joint inspection programme has been undertaken at sea with the UK control
            authorities within the SHARK operational framework. Additionally, in 2001 joint
            surveillance was undertaken with Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the UK
            concerning the ‘closed areas’ for cod fishing in the North Sea where participating
            FPV’s carried inspection personnel from the other Member States involved.

            Under separate arrangements the Ministry provided co-operation with several other
            Member States regarding infringements by Dutch vessels in waters of those states.

            In 2000 the authorities agreed an accord for co-operation with Spain regarding
            control of the Dutch pelagic fleet which land their catches in the Gran Canaria. In
            connection with this agreement MAPA and AID inspectors made exchange visits.
            Additionally, the AID regularly participates in the exchange of inspectors with
            Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the UK.

            In co-operation with the Commission and other MS, the AID provided an FPV to
            undertake patrols in NEAFC waters in 2001 and 2002. During the NEAFC mission
            in 2002 the Dutch inspection team was joined by an EC and Russian Inspector.

            The provision of VMS data to Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the UK and
            Sweden takes place automatically.


     7.     ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

            The Netherlands has implemented a control system in accordance with the
            requirements of the Control Regulation. An important aspect of this system is the
            agreement between the Ministry and the fishing industry on the devolved
            management of national fishing opportunities. The main features of this system are
            summarised in section 1.3. above. However, overall responsibility for monitoring
            compliance with Community Regulations remains with the Dutch authorities,
            notably the AID.




EN                                              156                                                  EN
     Within the general conception of structural control the Netherlands have
     implemented measures to monitor and control the development of the fishing fleet.
     The activities of the vessels have been monitored in relation to their MAGP IV
     segmentation. However, the Commission remains unconvinced of the reliability of
     the fleet register in relation to engine power. The Commission anticipates an
     improvement of the information available following greater controls and verification
     of registered engine power which began in 2002.

     There may be a paper reduction of the fleet in relation to vessel numbers, tonnage
     and kW, but the replacement of older vessels with new and therefore more efficient
     vessels does not necessarily mean there was a ‘realistic’ reduction in fishing effort on
     stocks already under pressure. Another area of concern in recent years has been the
     entry into the fleet of vessels operating multiple-rigs which again has increased the
     effective catching capacity of the demersal fleet.

     The entry into use of the FPV ‘Barend Biesheuvel’ has helped resolve the previously
     identified deficit of inspection and surveillance activity at sea. The surveillance of
     fishing activities in the Dutch EEZ and on the median lines with other MS has
     undoubtedly been enhanced by the operational capabilities of the new FPV and the
     utilisation of live VMS data. The use of illegal attachments to nets remains a problem
     and it has proven difficult to eradicate these practices. Experience has shown that
     once an FPV is known to be in the area, fishing vessels haul their gear and either
     remove the illegal attachments or leave the area.

     The level of inspection and surveillance activity ashore is largely dictated by the
     operating practices of the industry. The role of control by the inspection service with
     regard to landings by the demersal fleet is performed mainly on the basis of the
     designated port scheme and the requirement for prior authorisation to discharge. The
     AID, by setting annual targets for control measures in the ports, aim to ensure a high
     level of compliance for demersal landings and consider the situation to be
     satisfactory. In regard to the freezer trawler fleet, a fixed percentage of landings are
     fully monitored. Additionally, administrative inspections are undertaken in the
     offices of buyers and selling agents connected to the fish trade. However, despite
     these landing restrictions it is still felt that Dutch and other MS vessels land fish
     without declaring it by taking advantage of the 20% tolerance permitted in the EC
     Logbook. The AID emphasise that this situation not unique to the Netherlands and
     that this fish will not always enter the public auction system. Nevertheless, the
     Commission remains concerned about the reliability of the landings data supplied for
     Dutch and foreign landings where quantities may have by-passed the auctions. A
     tightening of controls is recommended in this respect.

     Based on the information from the Dutch annual reports and the observations of EC
     inspectors the Commission is concerned about the landings of undersize fish. The
     Commission has noted the initiatives taken by the national authorities (and indeed
     the Dutch industry itself) to eradicate such activity for landings and the sale of
     undersized fish but feels that these efforts could be further strengthened.

     Inspection and surveillance after the first sale and during transport is not always
     carried out systematically. A particular problem that has been recognised concerns
     fish which is transported to the Dutch markets and auctioned as ‘second sale’. Whilst
     the Control Regulation requires that documentary information is provided to verify


EN                                        157                                                   EN
     the original sale, this has not been adequately implemented in the Netherlands. The
     placing of fish on the Dutch auctions has been seen as an outlet for ‘black landings’,
     especially fish originating from the UK, Belgium and Denmark. The AID has sought
     to combat such activity and attempt to verify the source of such fish as far as
     possible. This has resulted in dialogue with other Member States from which the fish
     may originate. Taking into account the importance of the distribution and processing
     of fishery products, the Dutch authorities should seek to continue and strengthen co-
     operation on these activities in the future.

     In the opinion of the Commission the programme of co-operation, mutual exchanges
     of inspectors and data with other Member States has been an improvement on the
     situation of the past. Whilst links with Defra in the UK have been developed, co-
     operation with the French and Irish authorities concerning freezer vessels
     discharging in Dutch ports still seem somewhat weak. Therefore, continued co-
     operation should be encouraged and developed. It remains to be seen what will be the
     results of the co-operation in regard to the landings of the Dutch pelagic trawlers in
     the Gran Canarias.

     The Commission remains unconvinced of the reliability of the information received
     concerning catches by the pelagic freezer trawlers. The problem of mis-declaration
     of catch area has been exacerbated by the possibility for the vessels to fish both in
     EU and Mauritanian waters during the same voyage, with the catch then being
     discharged in Las Palmas. The operational accord agreed with the Spanish authorities
     should help resolve the control problems associated with this activity and the
     Ministry has amended national regulations concerning the EC logbook to strengthen
     controls on such activity. Given the large TAC’s for mackerel and horse mackerel in
     waters outside the North Sea, mis-reporting of species caught during the same
     voyage is also a possible problem area. EC inspectors have noted during missions
     that the 20% tolerance in the EC logbook has been fully exploited during discharges
     in Dutch ports. This has also been observed with Irish freezer trawlers landing in the
     Netherlands.

     The Netherlands has implemented its VMS successfully and the data in EC logbooks
     is cross-checked against the electronic data, but this has to be done manually in the
     port offices.

     The existing Dutch sanctioning system against fisheries infringements produces
     thorough results. However, the fines imposed are not generally seen as a deterrent
     and have remained somewhat variable in monitory terms. The Commission also
     remains concerned at the number of cases which are only dealt with by warnings,
     although the AID does consider them a useful tool to enhance compliance by the
     industry. The development of a system of administrative sanctions should be
     considered.




EN                                       158                                                  EN
                                             PORTUGAL

     1.      SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

             The Portugal fishing industry involves continental Portugal, the Azores and Madeira
             islands. Its fishing fleet is the fourth in the European Union in number of vessels and
             of fishermen, the sixth in terms of tonnage, the seventh in terms of engine power and
             the tenth in terms of catches.

     1.1.    Fleet

             The Portuguese fleet is present in most of the fisheries of Community, international
             and third country waters. According to Portuguese legislation, the fishing fleet is
             traditionally divided into local fishing, for vessels less than 9 meters, coastal fishing,
             for vessels from 9 to 33 meters, and high seas fishing. However, 90% of the fleet
             consists of coastal vessels less than 12 meters.

             From 2000 to 2002, the fleet decreased from 10,710 to 10,427 vessels, while the total
             engine power increased from 397,053.59 kW to 402,568.19 kW. In order to meet
             Portugal’s objectives45 for MAGP IV the Portuguese fleet has been divided into 10
             segments, of which the first five (segments 4K1-4K5) concern continental Portugal,
             the next three (segments 4K6-4K8) Madeira and the last two (segments 4K9 and
             4KA) Azores.

             The largest segments in terms of number of vessels are the continental coastal vessels
             < 12 meters (4K1) with 72% and with 14% the vessels < 12 meters fishing demersal
             species in Azores waters (4K9). The largest segments in terms of engine power are
             the continental coastal vessels (4K1) with 26% and with 20 % the continental vessels
             using fixed gear (4K2).

     1.2.    Fishing opportunities

             In addition to species not subject to quota, the coastal fleet, and the fleet of trawlers,
             purse seiners and vessels using fixed gear fishing in Community waters are allocated
             with quota for demersal and pelagic species. The fleet of trawlers operating in
             international waters and in the waters covered by Regional Fisheries Organisations
             (RFO) such as NAFO, NEAFC and CCMLAR is allocated quota mostly for demersal
             species. The surface longliners and the vessels fishing with live baits operating in
             waters covered by ICCAT have quota for albacore, big eye tuna, bluefin tuna and
             swordfish. For the other highly migratory species and in almost all the areas covered
             by fisheries agreements (Mauritania and ACP countries) the authorised vessels have
             fishing opportunities without any catch limitation.

             For 2001, the total fishing opportunities coming from initial quota allocated to
             Portugal was 92,747 tonnes. Among the most important species, horse mackerel



     45
            Commission Decision 98/128/EC.



EN                                                 159                                                    EN
            consisted of 37,950 tonnes, blue whiting 11,000 tonnes, highly migratory species
            10,116 tonnes and mackerel 6,840 tonnes.

            These fishing opportunities represent approximately 42% of the annual Portuguese
            landings. The remainder comes from species which are not subject to quota, coastal
            species, highly migratory species, other than bluefin and albacore tunas, caught in the
            area covered by ICCAT (yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna etc.), species provided by
            various fishing agreements (Mauritania, Community fishing agreements in ACP
            countries and private access agreements), and also by CCAMLR fisheries which are
            not reflected in the above mentioned quotas.

            The most important species for the Portuguese fishing industry in terms of quantity is
            sardine, of which annual catches reach approximately 70,000 tonnes.

     1.3.   National system for management of fleet and fishing opportunities

            Fleet and fishing opportunities are managed through limitation of fleet capacity by
            application of the MAGP IV rules, reduction of fishing effort and quota
            management. The Portuguese authorities limit any installed fishing capacity which
            has exceeded the objectives outlined in MAGP IV and may oblige fishermen to apply
            for fishing only in a certain segment. Reduction of fishing effort is obtained by
            withdrawing fishing licences and by implementation of measures regulating the use
            of certain type of gear. Fisheries where quotas have been exhausted are stopped.

            The Directorate General for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Direcção-Geral das Pescas e
            Aquicultura, hereafter DGPA) is responsible for licensing procedure and keeps, in
            Lisbon, the national fishing fleet register based on vessel characteristics information
            extracted from certificates issued by the Maritime Harbour Institute (Instituto
            Marítimo-Portuário, hereafter IMP). IMP is operating within the Ministry of
            Equipment (Ministério do Equipamento, do Planeamento e da Administração do
            Territorio) and takes care of the physical inspections of all Portuguese vessels. The
            fishing licence is issued for one year and specifies the type of gear, the allowed
            species and areas, and the validity period for the areas. The DGPA is also responsible
            for quota management and fishing effort calculation.

            The authorities of the autonomous regions of Azores and Madeira are responsible for
            the licence and permit schemes as well for the quota and effort uptake of their vessels
            when these are fishing in their area of jurisdiction. When fishing outside this area
            these vessels fall under the Portuguese mainland responsibility. Details of these
            vessels are kept in the national fishing fleet register in Lisbon, but their
            characteristics are based on figures provided by regional Fisheries Inspection
            Offices. The administrative files are held in these regional offices.

            In accordance with national regulations, a prior authorisation from the DGPA is
            requested for any purchase, construction or modernisation of a fishing vessel. This
            authorisation is issued in application of the reduction objectives for MAGP IV,
            taking into account any change in capacity. During the process, and on completion,
            inspections are carried out by the IMP, which shall ensure compliance with the
            characteristics required by the DGPA authorisation, notably gross tonnage and main
            engine power. In order to meet MAGP IV reduction objectives, the Portuguese
            administration used a programme to scrap vessels. The definitive decommissioning



EN                                               160                                                  EN
              of fishing vessels may take place by scrapping, by use for purposes other than fishing
              or through sale to third countries. National legislation stipulates that definitive
              decommissioning by scrapping has to be authorised and certified by the Maritime
              Authority (Autoridade Marítima/Capitanias de Porto, hereafter AM/CP) through the
              registration harbour master. In the case of temporary decommissioning, fishing
              licences are suspended by the DGPA and returned to the registration harbour master.
              When an authorisation has been issued by DGPA, the AM/CP enters registrations,
              cancellation and changes. This information is communicated to the DGPA which
              then updates the National fishing fleet register.

              For vessels of 10 metres or more, quota and fishing effort are managed by the means
              of logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes and hail messages. Portuguese
              legislation stipulates that the first sale of fresh or chilled fish must be carried out
              through an auction. Logbooks and landing declarations are transmitted to the DGPA
              by the ship owners, DOCAPESCA or regional offices of the DGPA, while sales
              notes for fresh or chilled fish are only transmitted by DOCAPESCA (60 %
              electronically and the rest by mail). This information is entered, processed, and
              verified into the National Data Bank for Fisheries and Aquaculture (BNDPA). With
              regards to NAFO and NEAFC fisheries, hail messages, including entry, exit, move,
              position, catches and transhipment, are transmitted to the DGPA.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Portuguese sovereignty or jurisdiction

              The area of competency of the monitoring and control Portuguese authorities
              concerns in total 3,300 km of coastline and a 490,000 square nautical miles EEZ
              including mainland Portugal, Madeira and Azores islands.

              The majority of the fleet is mostly operating within 15 nautical miles from the shore.
              This concerns on the one hand demersal species caught by a large number of small
              polyvalent vessels using mainly gillnets but also bottom longlines and trawls, and on
              the other hand small pelagic species caught by purse seiners. In addition, targeted
              fisheries for octopus are carried out with pots.

              In national waters, the purse seiner fleet takes 55 % of the catches, the polyvalent
              fleet (demersal and pelagic species) 30 % and the trawler fleet 14 %. As regards
              highly migratory species, swordfish is targeted by longliners while albacore, big eye,
              bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna and tuna like species are caught by longliners and by
              vessels using the live bait method in Azores and Madeira waters. One trap fishery
              targeting bluefin tuna is established in the south of Portugal, in Fuzetta.

     1.4.2.   International waters and third countries waters

              These fisheries concern segments 4K5, 4K7, 4K8 and 4KA, involving 225 vessels in
              2000 and 229 in 2002, from the mainland, the Azores and Madeira. Fourteen vessels
              share the quotas attributed to Portugal in the regulatory areas of NAFO (14 vessels),
              and NEAFC (6 vessels), and in Norwegian and Svalbard waters (6 vessels). Until
              recently, approximately thirty gillnetters were fishing under the EU – Moroccan
              Agreement, as well as one gillnetter and three trawlers under the EU- Mauritanian
              Agreement. The remainder of the vessels fishing in international and third country



EN                                                 161                                                  EN
              waters target swordfish and tunas. A few vessels have licences to fish in the Indian
              Ocean.

     1.4.3.   Landings

              Fishing vessels may discharge in 56 Portuguese harbours. Out of these 41 have to be
              considered as principal ports, of which 25 are located in mainland Portugal, 4 in
              Madeira and 12 in the Azores. Small local vessels land in certain areas where there
              are no ports, especially on the beaches of mainland Portugal.

              The main landing harbour for vessels fishing in NAFO and NEAFC regulatory areas
              is Aveiro. The ports of Lisbon, Sesimbra, Portimao and Olhao handle landings from
              vessels fishing in North Africa waters. Third country vessels are only allowed to
              discharge in nine ports of mainland Portugal, the most important being Lisbon,
              Aveiro and Peniche, and in three ports in the Azores and one in Madeira.

              In 2002 the total landings coming from national waters and sold through auctions
              reached 148,244.7 tonnes, with 132,807.2 on mainland Portugal, 7,838.4 in Azores
              and 7,599.1 in Madeira. The purse seiners fleet contributed 55 %, the trawlers fleet
              14 % and the polyvalent fleet (demersal and pelagic) 30%. The most important
              species was sardine with 63,577.5 tonnes.

              Landings from the NAFO regulatory area amounted to 18,430 tonnes, from
              Norwegian and Svalbard waters to 4,371.6 tonnes, from the south west Atlantic to
              3,853.3 tonnes, from the south east Atlantic to 1,278.5 tonnes and from the Indian
              Ocean to 2,172.7 tonnes.

     1.4.4.   Import, processing and transport

              Portugal imports annually from 150,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes of fresh or frozen
              fish, from 50,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes of salted or dried fish and about 10,000
              tonnes of canned fish. Cod is the main imported species, principally from Iceland and
              Norway, through the port of Aveiro. From 2000 to 2002, the annual Portuguese
              imports were approximately 350,000 tonnes while the annual exports increased from
              98,735 to 103,497 tonnes. The deficit of the trade balance increased from 643,81 to
              683,34 M€.

              Fresh fish is transported by lorry from one auction to another when the fish is not
              sold in the auction of the landing harbour. There is a trade in second sale, principally
              of horse mackerel and sardines, from northern Spanish harbours transported by road
              on a daily basis.


     2.       LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.     Legislation and administration

              The main piece of Portuguese fisheries legislation is the Decree Law N° 278/87 of 7
              July 1987 (Fisheries Act) and the subsequent secondary legislation based on it,
              Decree Regulation No 43/87 of 17 July 1987 (Fisheries Regulation). The Fisheries
              Act has virtually been re-written after many amendments and mainly in 1998 by
              Decree Law N° 383/98 of 27 November 1998 notably in order to significantly


EN                                                 162                                                   EN
           elevate the levels of fines applicable for infringements. The Fisheries Regulation has
           been amended by Decree Law N° 7/2000 of 30 May 2000, which among other things
           implements national measures applicable to fisheries resources in waters under
           Portuguese jurisdiction and introduces the new Community stock management and
           conservation rules46. In addition to the national decree-laws, adopted by the whole
           Council of Ministries, and decree regulations (Decreto Regulamentar), adopted by
           all the ministers related to fields or issues under their responsibility, lower levels of
           secondary legislation are used in fisheries control. Ministerial decisions or orders
           (Portarias) usually concentrate on technical or local matters. In 2000 a number of
           orders were adopted with a view to regulate various types of fishing gear.

           The Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (Ministério da
           Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, hereafter MADRP) is
           responsible for fisheries policy and administration and also for control and
           sanctioning activities. The Directorate General of Fisheries and Aquaculture
           (Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura, hereafter DGPA) is responsible for
           conservation and management policy, as well as for implementation of the fish
           marketing regulation. It also takes care of catch data processing and quota
           administration. Regional offices under DGPA have been established in Matosinhos,
           Aveiro and Olhão.

           The Lisbon-based Fisheries General Inspectorate (Inspecção-Geral das Pescas,
           hereafter IGP) used to be responsible47 for programming, co-ordinating and
           executing the fisheries and aquaculture monitoring and control activities, in
           collaboration with the other bodies involved in fisheries control. IGP was
           subsequently dissolved, and since 200248 the responsibilities for control and
           sanctioning activities are transferred to the DGPA, which for this purpose has created
           a Fisheries Inspection Service (Serviço de Inspecção, DGPA-SI). A new organic law
           is still waiting to be adopted in order to implement the new competencies and
           structure of the DGPA

           Owing to the process of decentralisation, some of the competencies of the Portuguese
           central fisheries authorities have been entrusted to the regional administration in the
           autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira49. This concerns the Regional
           Directorate for Fisheries of Madeira (Direcção Regional das Pescas da Madeira
           DRPM). and the Regional Fisheries Inspectorate of Azores (Inspecção Regional das
           Pescas dos Açores, hereafter IRPA), which was established50 at Ponta Delgada in
           Sao Miguel Island, with two secondary centres at Horta in Faial Islands and
           Madalena in Pico Island.

           Apart from the DGPA, and the IGP before 2002, the Maritime Authority/Harbour
           Office Administration (Autoridade Marítima/Capitanias de Porto, hereafter
           AM/CP), and the Portuguese Navy (Marinha Portuguesa), both operating under the
           Ministry of Defence, are empowered to carry out monitoring and inspection
           activities, the former in the coastal sea areas and ashore, the latter only at sea. The

     46
          Council Regulation (E.C.) N° 850/98.
     47
          Article 2 of Decree Law N° 92/97 of 23 April 1997.
     48
          Decree Law N° 246/2002 of 8 November 2002.
     49
          Article 34 of the Fisheries Act.
     50
          Regional Decree N° 11/2000/A.



EN                                                   163                                               EN
             Brigada Fiscal (BF), and now the Guarda Nacional Republicana-Brigada Fiscal
             (GNR-BF)), a section of the national police forces, has important tasks in control of
             fish by-passing the auctions as well as concerning minimum sizes of fish being
             landed and marketed.

             Air surveillance is supplied by the Portuguese Air Force (Força Aérea Portuguesa,
             FAP), in close co-operation with the DGPA. The Maritime and Harbour Institute
             (Instituto Marítimo-Portuário, hereafter IMP), under the Ministry of Equipment
             (Ministério do Equipamento, do Planeamento e da Administração do Territorio,
             hereafter MEPAT), is responsible for the physical inspections of all Portuguese
             vessels and provides the vessels characteristics for fleet register purposes to the
             DGPA.

             In addition to these main fisheries inspection bodies, certain administrations such as
             the General Inspectorate for Economic Activities (Inspecção-Geral das Actividades
             Económicas, hereafter IGAE.), the Directorate General of Veterinary (Direcção-
             Geral de Veterinária, hereafter DGV), the Customs (Direcção-Geral de Alfândegas
             e dos Impostos Especiais sobre o Consumo, hereafter DGAIEC)) and the General
             Directorate for Control of Food Quality (Direcção-Geral de Fiscalização e Controlo
             da Qualidade Alimentar, hereafter DGFCQA) have some competencies for
             controlling fish products. The practical management of the auction system has been
             entrusted to DOCAPESCA, a limited company with public capital and supervised by
             the Ministry of Agriculture.

             In order to co-ordinate the bodies involved in fisheries control and monitoring, and to
             improve the use of means available, a System for the Inspection and Control of
             Fishing Activities (SIFICAP) has been implemented in 200151. SIFICAP was co-
             ordinated by IGP and now by DGPA.

     2.2.    Powers of control

             In Portugal the two main national authorities responsible for fisheries control and
             inspection, as well as for follow-up of infringements, have different areas of
             competency. As a consequence different legislations are applicable to each of the
             authorities.

             DGPA inspectors have full police competencies in the execution of their duties. They
             have the power to board and inspect fishing vessels, enter auctions, harbours and all
             premises associated with the trade and storage of fish, as well as checking vehicles
             used for the transport of fish. The Fisheries Act52 also gives the DGPA the authority
             to programme, co-ordinate and execute fisheries monitoring and control activities in
             collaboration with the other institutions involved in fisheries control. The DGPA
             national inspectors are entrusted53 with powers to investigate infringements, to seize
             illegal fishing gear and catches and to sanction in all areas of fisheries, both at sea
             and on land.




     51
            Decree Law N° 79/2001 of 5 March 2001.
     52
            Articles 15 and 15A.
     53
            Article 6 of Decree Law N° 92/97.



EN                                                   164                                               EN
             Officers on board vessels of the Navy and of the Maritime Authorities, operated by
             the Ministry of Defence, are given full powers to board and search vessels for any
             illegal activity54 and powers of inspection55 in their respective sea area of
             competency56. The naval officers are entrusted with fisheries inspection power at sea
             outside 6 miles from the shore to the limit of the Portuguese EEZ. The Maritime
             Authorities have the power to enforce fisheries regulations within 6 miles from the
             shore57, while the Harbour Master of the Maritime Authorities is entrusted with the
             power to administer sanctions58. Officials from the Brigada Fiscal are given the
             power to enforce the regulations and to sanction in relation to the first sale of fish59.
             The Financial Police have limited powers which extend to controlling fish in
             auctions, notably minimum landing sizes, and during transport.

             The Director-General of the DGPA and the individual harbour masters are competent
             to decide on the level of fines and any accessory sanctions.

     2.3.    Follow up of infringements

             The system in place in Portugal for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is one
             predominantly based on administrative procedure. Sanction decisions are
             administered either by the Director General of the DGPA or by individual Captains
             of the local harbour administrations.

             Infringements of the fisheries rules are detailed in the Fisheries Act, which provides
             a catalogue of such infringements divided into four categories. This article also
             details the penalties, which were revised upwards in 1998. The first category
             concerns fishing without proper authorisation, which can lead to a fine of between €
             750 and € 50,000. The second category contains the main infringements that
             constitute infringements of the rules of the CFP, namely fishing with illegal gear,
             fishing in prohibited areas or during prohibited periods, fishing with explosives,
             fishing over quota, under-declaration of catches, VMS-infringements, undersize fish
             etc., and the range of fines is between € 600 and € 37,500. The third category,
             including among other things certain logbook infringements, can result in a fine of
             between € 250 and € 25,000. The range of fines for the forth category of
             infringements, considered less serious like for example late submission of logbook or
             landing declaration, is € 150 to € 5,000. The maximum fines are increased in the case
             of legal persons, e.g. € 250,000 for the first category and € 125,000 for the second.

             An infringement action is normally directed against the master of the vessel. Masters
             of fishing vessels in Portugal normally sign a contract with the owner of the vessel,
             accepting all responsibility for any detected infringements. Portuguese courts have
             also held that the master is not to be considered as the representative of the owner,
             and that he is himself solely responsible for his actions. This makes it exceedingly
             difficult to sanction vessel owners in Portugal. However, the owner will be
             responsible for payments of fines that the master cannot fulfil.


     54
            Decree law No 44 of 2 March 2002.
     55
            Article 6 of Decree law No 44 of 2 March 2002.
     56
            Article 4 of Decree law No 44 of 2 March 2002.
     57
            Decree Law N° 43 of 2 March 2002.
     58
            Decree Law N° 44 of 2 March 2002.
     59
            Article 17 of Decree Law N° 281 of 12 August 1988.



EN                                                    165                                                EN
     When an inspector from DGPA discovers an infringement he makes a written
     statement of the facts. Evidence is gathered, and statements from the master of the
     vessel (or any other infringing party) and any witnesses are taken. There is a special
     form used for these statements. The infringing party must be given the opportunity to
     read through the statement but is under no legal obligation to sign it. When the
     evidence has been gathered and a case file meeting the evidentiary requirements has
     been compiled, the case is forwarded to a jurist within the DGPA. A letter is sent to
     the offender with a request for comments within 20 days. On the basis of the case
     material and any comments received, the jurist prepares a draft decision which is
     later to be signed by the Director General of the DGPA.

     In cases where the Maritime Authority/Harbour Office Administration is the
     competent authority, reports on infringements are forwarded by the inspecting
     officers to the harbour captain, first by an interim report sent from the vessel and
     later in a formalised report signed by the captain of the inspection vessel. In
     principle, a case can be dealt with by the harbour authority responsible for the area in
     which the infraction took place, where the ship entered port or where the ship is
     registered. In most cases, however, the matter is handled by the authority responsible
     for the area in which the facts took place.

     In the harbour administration there are normally one or more case handlers (maritime
     police officers), who are responsible for compiling the case file and for preparing the
     decision. Basically, the same procedure applies as for DGPA, i.e. the offender must
     be given the opportunity to present his defence, whether by written statement or
     orally in the harbour office. When the case file is completed and a decision drafted,
     the captain of the harbour takes the formal decision. In the case of mixed
     competencies, i.e. where both DGPA and the harbour administration are competent,
     the case will be handled by the harbour captain in one process.

     Detention of vessels is possible, although this is used primarily for foreign vessels.
     For infringements discovered at sea, the vessel is re-routed to port and is to be kept
     there until the end of the process, unless a caution is paid (1/3 of the maximum fine).
     Such re-routing and detention would typically be used in case of fishing in forbidden
     zones, use of illegal gear, keeping on board undersize fish or fishing without licence.
     Nets are sealed and an officer is put on board for the trip to port.

     As for the determination of the level of the fine to be imposed, there are certain
     elements, defined in law, which shall be taken into account. Such elements are the
     seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability, the economic and social
     situation of the defendant (the defendant provides copies of tax returns for the
     determination of ability to pay fines), the profit gained from the infraction, the level
     of co-operation with the authorities and the defendant’s history regarding previous
     offences. In practice, the economic situation of the defendant appears to be one of the
     more prominent elements to influence the level of the fine. Confiscation of catch
     and/or gear will in practice also influence the level of the fine.

     The principal accessory sanction, and seemingly the most frequently used, is the
     confiscation of gear used when committing the infringement and the fishery products
     thereby obtained. Although the law contains no specification on this point, in
     practice what is confiscated is gear that is illegal in all circumstances (i.e. which has
     no legal use whatsoever). Undersize fish is automatically confiscated. In other cases,


EN                                        166                                                    EN
            such as quota or by-catch breaches, more often the illegal catch is sold and the
            corresponding value is forfeited.

            Another of the accessory sanctions provided for by the Fisheries Act is the possibility
            to suspend a vessel’s licence. It is the Director General of DGPA who has the power
            to take such a decision, but apparently the opportunity has never been used. There is
            also a possibility to prohibit a fisherman from exercising his right to fish for a certain
            number of days, and such decisions have been taken from time to time.

            Written or oral warnings are not provided for as a follow-up of an infringement, and
            a formal procedure will always have to be initiated in cases where an infraction is
            detected. However, the law on administrative sanctions provides the possibility to
            administer a written admonishment, but only after the infringement procedure has
            been completed.

            A sanctioning decision taken by a harbour administration can be appealed to the
            Lisbon based maritime court (Tribunal Marítimo de Lisboa), while decisions taken
            by DGPA can be appealed to a general court of first instance (Tribunal de Comarca),
            depending on where the infringement took place. Appeals of decisions by the
            harbour administration are far less frequent than appeals of DGPA’s decisions.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The total annual expenditures for fisheries control – including control on shore and at
            sea, air surveillance, VMS etc. – in Portugal, involving DGPA, IGP (or DGPA-SI),
            GNR-BF, the Navy, IRP of the Autonomous Region of Azores, were € 11.4 millions
            in 2000, 13.7 in 2001 and 13 in 2002.

     3.2.   Human resources

            The total number of land based personnel involved in fisheries control and
            monitoring activities employed by all the administrations responsible for these
            matters in mainland Portugal, Azores and Madeira, increased from 261 in 2000 to
            595 in 2001 and 599 in 2002. Out of these the number of IGP fisheries inspectors
            (DGPA-SI since 2002) liable to operate on the field in the whole national territory
            increased from 10 in 2000 to 13 in 2001 and 2002. The IGP (now DGPA-SI)
            fisheries inspectors are given an initial training which lasts for one year. It is also
            partly carried out on the spot by accompanying the experienced inspectors in their
            work. After the first year, the inspectors receive a further practical training.

            According to the Portuguese authorities, the total reported number of personnel of
            the Portuguese Navy involved in fisheries monitoring and control at sea was reduced
            from 297 in 2000 to 54 in 2001, since only the captain and the inspection team, not
            all the crew of the patrol vessel, are empowered to take part in fisheries monitoring.
            The Navy holds annual training courses in fisheries control with input from the
            DGPA. The Air Force personnel involved in fisheries control and monitoring was 4
            in 2000 and 2001.




EN                                                167                                                    EN
     3.3.    Other resources

             The Portuguese Navy provided 31 vessels in 2000, 29 in 2001 and 32 in 2002 for
             fisheries monitoring and control in the whole Portuguese EEZ. From 2000 to 2002,
             these maritime means consisted of 10 to 7 corvettes, of 7 to 8 patrol vessels, of 10 to
             12 fast launches, and of 3 or 4 other small boats. All these vessels are used in a
             rotation scheme. The Portuguese Air Force provided five airplanes for fisheries
             monitoring, three Aviocar CASA 212-100 and two Aviocar CASA 212-300. In
             addition to fisheries patrols, these vessels and aircrafts perform other duties dealing
             especially with SAR missions, pollution control and detection of illegal activities.

     3.4.    Financial aid programme

             During the period 2000 - 2002, the Community financial contribution allocated to
             Portugal for fisheries control was as follows (in €) :

                        2000                 2001              2002

                      649,159             4,612,880        16,160,962

             The main projects realised over the 2000 programme were the development and
             consolidation of the SIFICAP and MONICAP (Vessel Monitoring System).
             Concerning 2001 and 2002, Portugal experienced a number of problems in the
             execution of the planned programmes and this resulted in some delay. The planned
             purchase of helicopters, for a very substantial amount, has been greatly delayed.


     4.      MONITORING

     4.1.    Control databases

             The EC logbook sheets, landing declarations for vessels with a length of 10 meters or
             more (the monthly declarations for smaller vessels) and sales notes are entered into
             the National Data Bank for Fishing and Aquaculture (BNDPA) in Lisbon by DGPA
             after being submitted by the ship owners, DOCAPESCA and the regional offices of
             the DGPA. Some of these data entries have recently been decentralised to the
             regional offices of the DGPA, in order to achieve better efficiency. The compiled and
             processed logbooks and landing declaration information serves as a basis for fishing
             effort calculation and quota management. The National fishing fleet register is
             maintained on computer by DGPA.

             The System for the Inspection and Control of Fishing Activities (SIFICAP) has been
             implemented60 as an integrated information system consisting of a communication
             and data-processing network, the data concerned being obtained and shared by the
             bodies involved in fisheries monitoring, control and inspection activities. The
             participating administrations are the DGPA, the Directorate General for the Navy
             (Direcção-Geral de Marinha, DGM) the Naval Command (Commando Naval, CN),
             the Portuguese Air Force, the GNR-BF, and the Autonomous Administrations of the
             Azores and Madeira. SIFICAP is co-ordinated by DGPA, whose task it is to manage,

     60
            Decree Law N° 79/2001 of 5 March 2001.



EN                                                   168                                               EN
             in co-operation with the other bodies, the human and material resources essential for
             the operation of the system.

     4.2.    VMS

             In line with the Control Regulation the Portuguese national authorities have
             established a satellite based monitoring system (VMS) to monitor the positions of the
             Portuguese fishing vessels for which the Community requirements are applicable. In
             addition, Portugal has extended the VMS scheme to cover all vessels with an overall
             length exceeding 15m, including fisheries research vessels61. In total, 440
             Portuguese fishing vessels have been equipped with a VMS transmitter. In
             accordance with the said Community regulation, they have adopted technical and
             operational measures to ensure that the VMS is fully operational and provided staff
             in order to serve the FMC.

             Also, as required, a comprehensive list of co-ordinates which delimit its EEZ has
             been transmitted, and facility for remote access by DG Fish by online sessions to the
             computer files containing the data recorded by the FMC has been provided. The
             automatic data processing permits position reports from a Portuguese fishing vessel
             to be automatically forwarded to the coastal-state involved with the fishing area, and
             to make cross checks with the fleet register. All received position reports are stored
             in the FMC. VMS failure at sea now requires that vessels return to port to repair.
             This has reduced the number of transmission interruptions.

             The Portuguese Fishing Monitoring Centre (FMC) is situated in the headquarters of
             DGPA in Lisbon, where the inspectors are responsible for receiving and processing
             the VMS data. A link has been implemented from the FMC to the autonomous
             control authorities of the Azores in order to monitor the mainland-based vessels
             operating in the Portuguese EEZ off the Azores.


     5.      INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

             From a general point of view, the DGPA carries out administrative control within the
             framework of the maintenance of the national fishing fleet register, in coordination
             with the inspections carried out by IMP during vessels constructions or
             modernisations and by the DGPA inspectors in the harbours.

     5.1.    Waters under Portuguese sovereignty or jurisdiction

             The Portuguese Navy has the main responsibility for carrying out maritime fisheries
             inspections, both within the 12 nautical miles and the EEZ of mainland Portugal, as
             well as in the seas around the Azores and Madeira. In coastal waters the Maritime
             Authority/Harbour Office Administration also carries out controls at sea. In total
             these authorities carried out 19,128 hours of inspections in 2000, 21,030 in 2001 and
             16,872 in 2002.




     61
            Decree Law No 310/98 of 14 October 1998.



EN                                                     169                                            EN
     5.2.   International waters and third country waters

            No Portuguese inspectors or inspection vessels have been assigned to duties in
            international or third country waters. The documents concerning these fisheries are
            dealt with by national authorities in the customary fashion.

            According to the Portuguese authorities, the DGPA weekly checks the activity of the
            vessels operating in NAFO and NEAFC regulated areas, in Norwegian and in
            Svalbard waters for quota management purposes. This control is carried out through
            the compulsory hail system messages transmitted by the vessels to the DGPA
            Documentary verification of logbooks and landing declarations is further carried out
            solely by the DGPA fisheries inspectors as regards the fleet operating in NAFO area,
            and to lesser extent in Norwegian and Svalbard waters.

            With regards to vessels operating under fishing agreement between EU and Third
            countries, in addition to the documentary verification provided for within the
            framework of the specific provisions implemented for each agreement, a monthly
            administrative control system was introduced. This system allows checking the
            obligatory documents under the terms of the Control Regulation (logbooks and
            landing declarations) and the catch declaration form applicable in each agreement.
            Within the framework of the agreement with Mauritania, catches are verified on a
            documentary basis.

            The logbooks of the polyvalent fleet fishing for highly migratory species are
            controlled almost 100 % by the DGPA

     5.3.   Landings

            The DGPA (formerly IGP) does not have officials to carry out physical control in
            each harbour. The landings control is conducted at the DGPA headquarters on the
            basis of computerised data, and by DGPA fisheries inspectors during their missions.
            DGPA operates mainly in a centralised manner, sending the national inspector teams
            from Lisbon to perform control duties in ports. According to the Portuguese
            authorities, since national legislation stipulates that first sale of fresh or chilled fish
            must be carried out through auction, the landings of such fish are validated by
            DOCAPESCA services at a percentage rate from 75 to 80 % of total landings, the
            rest corresponding to quantities removed from the auction market.

            Approximately 35 to 40 % of the landings validated by the auction services are
            further checked at the time of landing by the inspection agents of the various bodies
            involved in fisheries control. In addition, the fisheries inspectors carry out
            crosschecks between logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes during their
            missions on the spot. According to the Portuguese authorities, this control in loco
            concerns 30 % of the landings.

            All the landings of the Portuguese vessels operating in the NAFO area (which are not
            subject to compulsory first sale through auction) are checked by DGPA fisheries
            inspectors. The landings of the Portuguese vessels operating in the NEAFC area are
            only checked if they also have operated in the NAFO area during the same fishing
            trip. The landings carried out by Third country vessels are controlled in their entirety
            by the services of the DGAIEC and by the DGV.



EN                                                170                                                     EN
     5.4.    Import, processing and transport

             DGPA’s regionally-based officials visit processing plants and auction centres. There
             are 34 officials involved in the monitoring of markets. This number includes both
             administrative and technical staff. They carry out verifications of fish products in the
             areas of their jurisdiction and ensure the regular monitoring of the grading of fish for
             sale. In 2000 and 2001, respectively 124 and 348 storage depots and 108 and 191
             vehicles were inspected at locations other than auction markets.

     5.5.    Information on inspection and surveillance activity

             In 2000, the Portuguese authorities reported a total of 12,824 inspections carried out
             on shore in the whole of Portugal by all the bodies involved in fisheries control. Of
             these inspections, 94 % involved the GNR-BF, the Portuguese Navy and the DGM.
             The DGPA inspectors carried out 4 % (457) of these inspections, none of which in
             the Azores or Madeira Islands. The Fisheries Inspection Services of the Azores
             conducted 18 inspections. The number of inspections carried out in the Azores and
             Madeira Islands consisted of 14 % of the total for the whole of Portugal. The number
             of inspection carried at sea by the Portuguese Navy was 1,781, while 3,513 sightings
             were made by both Navy and Air Force.

             In 2001, 36,138 inspections were carried out on shore in the whole Portugal by all
             bodies involved. 92 % of these inspections involved the GNR-BF and the DGM. The
             DGPA inspectors carried out 1 % (504) of these inspections. The DGPA inspections
             concerned trawlers by 50.4 %, purse seiners by 11.1%, gillnetters by 23.4%,
             longliners by 2.8 % and pots by 12.3 %. The Fisheries Inspection Services of the
             Azores conducted 656 inspections. The number of inspections carried out in the
             Azores and Madeira Islands consisted of 19 % of the total for the whole Portugal.
             The number of inspection carried at sea by the Portuguese Navy was 1,929, while
             1,432 sightings were made by both Navy and Air Force.

             In 2002, 15,264 inspections were carried out on shore in the whole Portugal by all
             bodies involved. 78 % these inspections involved GNR-BF, and DGM. The DGPA
             inspectors carried out 3 % (468) of these inspections. The Fisheries Inspection
             Services of Azores conducted 218 inspections. The number of inspections carried out
             in Azores and Madeira Islands consisted of 13 % of the total. A total of 2,624
             inspections were carried out at sea.

     5.6.    Enforcement

             In accordance with Community Regulation62, Portuguese authorities reported to the
             Commission to have detected for the years 2000 - 2002, respectively 1,320, 1,118
             and 1,579 serious infringements, of which 96 % in 2001 and 99 % in 2002 concerned
             vessels flying the Portuguese flag or involving Portuguese fishermen. These
             infringements covered 11 types of behaviour, as provided in the list of the said
             regulation, in 2000, 13 in 2001 and 11 in 2002. For each year, the two main types
             were fishing without holding a licence or another authorisation (C1) and
             unauthorised fishing (D5). Administrative procedures were initiated in 1,035 cases in


     62
            Council Regulations (CE) N° 1447/1999 and N° 2740/1999.



EN                                                   171                                                EN
             2001 and in 1,437 cases in 2002, while 1 case in 2001 and 3 cases in 2002 were the
             subject of a penal procedure. Penalties were imposed in 579 cases in 2001 and in 550
             cases in 2002.

             In 2001, the average fine in 330 cases was € 4,309 ranging from € 10,882 for using
             or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear or devices affecting the selectiveness
             (D1) to € 312 for directed fishing for, or keeping on board of prohibited species (D4).
             The seizure of catches and gear was ordered in 264 cases concerning mainly
             unauthorised fishing (D5). A total of 368.4 tonnes of fish were seized. No case of
             licence withdrawals was notified by Portugal.

             In 2002, the average fine was € 491 ranging from € 139 for falsifying the
             identification marks of fishing vessels (C3) to € 1,232 for failure to meet marketing
             standards (F2). In addition, Portugal ordered the seizure of catches or gear in 207
             cases. No licence withdrawals were reported.


     6.      COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.    Co-operation at national level

             In 2001 the IGP continued to deploy efforts to strengthen collaboration and
             partnership between bodies entrusted with control and legislative powers in fisheries,
             in particular via the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Inspection and SIFICAP,
             although the Planning and Programming Committee (CPP)63, foreseen for the
             implementation of the SIFICAP, had not yet been appointed. The IGP took part in
             personnel training activities, in particular within the Navy, the Regional Fisheries
             Inspectorate of the Azores and in order to set up the Maritime Branch of the GNR-
             BF.

     6.2.    Co-operation at international level

             The IGP (DGPA) co-operates with the Spanish control authorities mainly for the
             exchange of fisheries information and in the field of investigation of infringements.
             Still, the Portuguese officials have often expressed the wish of achieving a better
             level of this co-operation especially alongside the southern borderline (Gulf of
             Cadiz).

             The Portuguese Navy patrol vessel, N.R.P. “JAO ROBY” carried out missions in the
             NEAFC regulatory area, with IGP and Commission inspectors on board. At the
             request of the Commission, this mission also covered the NAFO regulatory area,
             with specific measures in Zone 1F. A team of IGP inspectors underwent in 2001
             training at sea on board the EU fisheries patrol vessel “Kommandor Amalie”.


     7.      ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

             The Portuguese fishing industry concerns the continental Portugal and the islands of
             Azores and Madeira and is the fourth in the European Union in number of vessels


     63
            Article 6 of Decree N° 79/2001.



EN                                                172                                                  EN
     and of fishermen, the sixth in tonnage, the seventh in terms of engine power and the
     tenth in terms of catches. The Portuguese fishing fleet consists of 90 % of vessels
     with a length under 12 meters.

     In accordance with the Control Regulation, Portugal has implemented a control
     system for fishing activities. The legal basis and the administrative structures provide
     a framework in order to implement and enforce the Common Fisheries Policy. The
     General Directorate for Fisheries (DGPA) of the Ministry of Agriculture (MADRP)
     has the overall responsibility for fisheries management and policy and also, since
     November 2002, in particular for carrying out control and inspection activities
     through its own fisheries inspectorate. However, the organic law needed to
     implement the new powers and structure of DGPA has yet to be adopted.

     Until 2002, fisheries monitoring and control activities, in particular on shore, and the
     co-ordination of control activities at national level were carried out by the General
     Inspectorate for Fisheries (IGP). In addition, fisheries monitoring and inspection are
     also the competencies of several other bodies, of which the most important are the
     GNR-BF, and at sea, the Portuguese Navy and the Maritime Authority. The control
     powers given to the inspectors, both in the central administration and on the spot,
     allow them to actually accomplish their duties.

     Portugal has produced a significant legislative effort in order to better regulate
     fisheries and to transpose the requirements of the Community Regulation into
     Portuguese law. The Fisheries Act and the Fisheries Regulation have virtually been
     rewritten after many amendments, notably in order to introduce Community
     Technical Measures.

     In order to improve the co-ordination and the collaboration of the different bodies
     involved in fisheries monitoring and control, and to optimise the efficiency of the
     resources and control means available, the Portuguese authorities implemented in
     2001 an integrated information system for fisheries inspection, the SIFICAP. This
     system makes it possible for all the concerned services, including those under the
     responsibilities of the Autonomous authorities of the Azores and Madeira islands, to
     obtain and share relevant data. However, the Planning and Programming Committee
     (CPP) foreseen for the implementation of the SIFICAP had not yet been appointed.

     Portugal has implemented measures to manage and control the fishing fleet in
     application of the MAGP IV rules. The accuracy of the national fleet register has
     recently risen to quite a satisfactory level, except in relation to engine power. The
     monitoring of this information is focused on the initial checks and is not
     systematically supported by physical inspections. The Commission cannot be
     convinced of the reliability of the contents of the fleet register in relation to engine
     power.

     Portugal was a pioneer regarding VMS, having implemented the system as a national
     requirement even before it became compulsory under Community Law. The
     information obtained by VMS is integrated in the Portuguese inspection and
     surveillance system, but has not been utilised for cross-checking or effort calculation
     purposes so far.




EN                                        173                                                   EN
     The Portuguese authorities have established monitoring systems for catches and
     landings, marketing and transport of fishing products involving IGP, DGPA and
     DOCAPESCA However, this system covers only sales made through auctions. For
     the remainder, most of the sales notes are not available. In addition, the methodology
     and the procedure used complicate the cross-checking of landings declarations and
     sales notes. The format of sales notes, collected from DOCAPESCA; does not
     distinguish between individual landings. Furthermore, because of the time it takes to
     input data into databases, especially as regards logbooks, landings declarations and
     sales notes, and of the lack of human resources, the cross check of this information,
     the calculation and the monitoring of the fishing effort and the quota management
     cannot be considered as satisfactory. The Commission cannot guarantee the
     reliability of the catch and effort registration system.

     No procedure for the enforcement of Common Marketing Standards was
     implemented outside of the auction system. When the fish is sold through auctions,
     the classification is made prior to the sale and grading and freshness appear on the
     clock, but no label is used. The whole landing system for small pelagic species and
     the intervention system are based on the use of standardised boxes, but no procedure
     has been set up to check their actual weight and no control is carried out at any stage
     in the chain. Control after first sale is based on road and trade checks, which are
     associated with the monitoring of undersize fish and direct sale. These actions have
     been successful.

     The Portuguese authorities do not systematically monitor the activities of their
     vessels beyond Community fishing waters. The Commission is furthermore not
     convinced that all cases where information about infringements committed by
     Portuguese vessels in international waters has been conveyed to the national
     authorities have been followed up in a satisfactory manner. All the landings of
     vessels returning from NAFO are however physically inspected by inspectors from
     DGPA. Given the restricted number of DGPA inspectors in the field – some 9 or 10
     – the monitoring of NAFO landings naturally ties up a lot of the scarce resources.
     The DGPA does not have any inspectors permanently located in any of the ports, not
     even where regional offices have been established.

     Apart from NAFO landings and landings of vessels returning from fisheries under
     fishery agreements concluded between the Community and respectively Morocco
     and Mauritania, inspections completed can be characterised as routine inspections.
     The Portuguese authorities should also take a greater interest in the inspection of
     landings of quantities caught by flag of convenience vessels operating in
     international waters in the North Atlantic (so called non-Contracting Party vessels
     operating in the NAFO and NEAFC Regulatory Areas).

     Despite the efforts made by the Portuguese authorities in legislative matters, in
     restructuring their administration to better co-ordinate resources and means available,
     and in the implementation of the VMS, the results achieved in the enforcement of the
     Common Fisheries Policy cannot be considered as satisfactory. This applies
     generally to Portugal as a whole, but particularly to the Azores and Madeira, notably
     with regards to highly migratory species.

     This situation is mainly the result of a notable lack of resources in all administrations
     involved in fisheries monitoring and inspection, and particularly with regards to the


EN                                        174                                                    EN
     DGPA and the fisheries inspectors now working under that authority. The number of
     inspectors is clearly insufficient in relation to the size and importance of the
     Portuguese fishing industry. Furthermore, the maritime means consist of only 2
     active vessels at any time in order to cover the three large fishing areas of the
     Portuguese EEZ. Indeed, the fishing fleet consists of a large number of vessels of
     which 90 % have a length less than 12 meters and land daily in numerous harbours.
     The monitoring and control of such a fishing pattern require considerable resources
     which are not provided by the Portuguese authorities.

     The DGPA inspectors have started making crosschecks of sales notes with log sheets
     when they carry out inspections. This has resulted in detections of discrepancies.
     However, DGPA carry out only a small number of such inspections compared with
     the total number of landings in Portugal. In addition, the weakness of the data bases
     does not allow administrative control by systematically cross-checking logsheets,
     landing declarations and sales notes in the headquarters of DGPA

     The statistics provided by the Portuguese authorities show that the IGP (DGPA)
     inspectors carried out only 4 %, 1 % and 3 % of the total number of shore inspections
     in the respective years of 2000, 2001 and 2002. Most of the inspections are carried
     out by the GNR-BF However, during their missions, Commission inspectors
     accompany IGP (now DGPA) inspectors and have not had the opportunity, except on
     a few occasions, to verify the type of inspection carried out by the GNR-BF and to
     assess the way they conduct fisheries control activities.

     In relation to the number of inspections, the number of infringements detected
     appears disproportionately low in the light of the observations made by the
     Commission’s inspectors. Most detected serious infringements appear to have been
     subject to, mostly, administrative sanctioning procedure, but the number of reported
     cases where penalties have been imposed is considerably lower (1/3). The reported
     average levels of fines show a remarkable fluctuation from on year to another (€
     4,309 in 2001 and € 491 in 2002), which makes it impossible to draw any
     conclusions as to the real level of fines imposed. The Commission has however
     doubts as to the overall efficiency and deterrent value of the sanctioning system in
     place.




EN                                       175                                                 EN
                                             SPAIN

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            Spain has both Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts and the largest fishing fleet in the
            European Union in terms of tonnage and number of fishermen, the second in terms of
            engine power and catches and the third in number of vessels.

     1.1.   Fleet

            The Spanish fleet is characterised by a strong presence in most of the fisheries of the
            Community, international and third country waters, shared between coastal, middle
            and distant waters scale and operating with a large number of vessels from numerous
            harbours. The significant distant waters fleet operates from the harbours of the
            Atlantic coast.

            The Spanish fleet has been divided into 7 MAGP IV segments. The largest segments
            in terms of number of vessels are the coastal vessels < 12 meters (4E1) with 72%, the
            trawlers fishing in Community waters (4E2) with 12% and the vessels using fixed
            gear in Community waters (4E3) with 6 %. The largest segments in terms of engine
            power are the trawlers fishing in Community waters (4H2) with 27 %, the vessels
            using trawl and mobile gear in international and third countries waters (4E5) with 19
            % and the coastal vessels <12 m (4E1) with 14 %. Because of the diversified nature
            of the Spanish fisheries, the national administration has supplemented the MAGP IV
            segmentation with additional sub-segments.

            To meet the Spanish objectives for MAGP IV, the Spanish administration has
            provided financial aid to the industry for decommissioning vessels. The fleet
            capacity decreased from 16,665 vessels with a total power of 1,331,594 kW in 2000
            to 14,896 vessels with 1,259,171 kW in 2002.

            The Spanish administration issues temporary authorisations for change of fishing
            method, allowing the involved vessels to carry out seasonal activities which are not
            covered by their segment or sub-segment. For example, the purse seiners fishing for
            small pelagic species are temporarily authorised to target tuna species with live bait
            during summer.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            On the Atlantic coats, in addition to species not subject to quota, the coastal fleet,
            and the fleet of trawlers, purse seiners and vessels using fixed gear fishing in
            Community waters benefit of quota for demersal and small pelagic species. The fleet
            of trawlers operating in international waters, and in the waters of Regional Fishing
            Organisations (RFO) such as NAFO, NEAFC and CCMLAR, is allocated with quota
            mostly for demersal species. The Atlantic purse seiners and vessels fishing with live
            baits for tuna, operating in waters covered by ICCAT and IOTTC, benefit from quota
            for swordfish, albacore, big eye and bluefin tunas. For the other highly migratory
            species and in almost all the areas covered by Community fishing agreements




EN                                               176                                                  EN
             (Mauritania and ACP countries) these vessels, when they are granted with a licence
             to do so, benefit from fishing opportunities without any catch limitation.

             On the Mediterranean side, within the framework of ICCAT, purse seiners, surface
             longliners and trap fisheries benefit from quota for bluefin tuna, which is the only
             species subject to quota in the Mediterranean Sea. For the other species, demersal
             species, other tunas, swordfish, and small pelagic species, no catch limitation has
             been implemented.

             For 2001, the total fishing opportunities coming from initial quota allocated to Spain
             were 322,315 tonnes. Among the most important species, blue whiting consisted of
             79,910 tonnes, horse mackerel 63,910 tonnes, highly migratory species 50,585
             tonnes, anchovy 34,480 tonnes and mackerel 33,140 tonnes. These fishing
             opportunities represent more or less 33% of the annual Spanish landings. The
             remainder comes from species which are not subject to quota, caught in the Atlantic
             ocean, highly migratory species caught in the area covered by ICCAT (yellowfin and
             skipjack tunas etc.), species from the Mediterranean Sea, and within various fishing
             agreements (Mauritania, Community fishing agreements in ACP countries or private
             access agreements), and also from CCMLAR fisheries which are not reflected in the
             mentioned quotas.

     1.3.    National system for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

             Although some competencies in the area of fisheries have been passed to the
             Autonomous Communities, the basic management and structural measures of the
             fleet remains the competence of the national central authority. The fishing fleet
             register, the so called Third List’ (Lista Tercera) of the General National Vessel
             Register, has been instituted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
             (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, hereafter MAPA), through the
             General Secretary for Sea Fisheries (Secretaria General de Pesca Marítima,
             hereafter SGPM). The national vessel register is the responsibility of the General
             Directorate for the Merchant Navy (Dirección General de la Marina Mercante,
             hereafter DGMM), part of the Ministry of “Equipment” (Ministerio de Fomento,
             hereafter MdeF). Data concerning vessel characteristics are transferred to SGPM
             from DGMM.

             The fishing vessel licensing procedures is regulated in detail64 as well as the issue of
             temporary fishing permits65. In addition, specific statutes have been adopted
             concerning each respective type of fishery. According to these statutes, particular
             limitations of capacity and/or activities are in force as regards the fishery in question.
             Also, supplementary regulations fix on an annual basis the list of vessels according
             to certain fisheries, periods and areas.

             Licences are usually issued for the period of two calendar years. For some fisheries
             annual licences are issued. Licence details can also change if the characteristics of
             the vessel alter or when a vessel applies for a change from one fishery segment to
             another. Temporary licences or permits are issued for fishing in international waters,

     64
            Royal Decree 798/95 of 19 May 1995 as amended by Royal Decree N° 2287/98 of 23 October 1998
     65
            Ministerial decision of 15 October 1981 on the basis of delegation provisions provided by Royal Decree
            N° 681 of 28 March 1980.



EN                                                      177                                                          EN
               e.g. NAFO, Hatton Bank, Svalbard etc, and for vessels targeting tunas and swordfish.
               Temporary permits are normally valid for one year. Regulations publish the list of
               such vessels on an annual basis.

               Vessel construction or modernisation, or changes in vessel engine power (even with
               the agreement of the regional authorities), cannot be authorised unless there is prior
               permission from SGPM66.

               Spanish national quotas are managed on a global basis, the main principle being not
               to divide or allocate them to individual vessels of Producer’s Organisations. Every
               vessel with a valid licence or permit is therefore allowed to fish for TAC species
               until the potential exhaustion of the national quota. The exceptions are surface
               longliners fishing for swordfish in southern oceans, which are provided with an
               individual quota and are allowed to swap the vessel allocations. The same applies to
               some extent in the sardine fishery where vessels are subjected to a daily catch
               limitation. Individual quotas for hake are also allocated within the framework of the
               Community hake emergency measures.

               National quota uptake for all species is calculated by SGPM from the information
               supplied in the EC logbook. For ICCAT regulated species quota uptake is calculated
               from the landing declarations. In the tuna fisheries vessels are required to report
               catches on a regular basis to SGPM. The Producer Organisations do not have any
               competencies in quota allocation and management except for hake within the
               Community emergency measures, where they have to produce operational plans
               outlining their annual catch strategy, expressed in number of days at sea by vessels.

               Details and primary source of aggregate calculations for fishing effort is produced by
               Owner Associations or Producer Organisations and supplied every year to SGPM.
               Swaps are allowed between vessels or between PO’s but only with the approval of
               the Spanish administration. For fishing effort in Western Waters, the calculation is
               made by SGPM from the compulsory effort messages sent directly by vessels. The
               MAGP IV effort calculations are made in complete days even when the fishing
               vessels are operating for only a few hours during each day. National regulations have
               been implemented in order to control the fishing effort in Mediterranean waters
               where vessels can only fish for five days a week and for a maximum of 12 hours per
               day. However, there are some derogations to this general rule. All calculations of
               effort uptake have to be supplied to the Commission on a regular basis.

               The Spanish authorities have declared that the relation between the fishing
               possibilities and the fleet capacity is in balance, except for the polyvalent segment.

     1.4.      Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.    Waters of Member State

               Spain has introduced a Fishing Protection Zone (FPZ)67 in the Mediterranean Sea,
               including the Balearic Islands, extending its jurisdiction in matter of fisheries control
               beyond the 12 miles normally provided by the territorial waters. On the Atlantic

     66
              Royal Decree N° 798/1995.
     67
              Royal Decree N° 1315/97, modified by Royal Decree N° 431/2000.



EN                                                     178                                                 EN
              coast Spain has competency within its territorial waters and EEZ including the
              Canary Islands.

              The waters under the Spanish jurisdiction primarily concern the whole segment of
              artisanal fisheries (4E1), which consisted of 10,905 vessels in 2002 using all kinds of
              gear, both in the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

              In the Mediterranean Sea, the whole Spanish Mediterranean fleet, as well as third
              country or other Community fishing vessels operating in the FPZ, notably the French
              purse seiners and the Italian surface longliners targeting bluefin tuna, are liable to
              fish in the waters under Spanish jurisdiction. The Spanish vessels use mainly static
              gear, bottom trawlers and longliners for demersal species, purse seiners for small
              pelagic fisheries and purse seiners, surface longliners and trap fisheries targeting
              highly migratory species. Third country vessels undertake transhipping and
              processing operations in Spanish waters or harbours.

              On the Atlantic side, the whole Spanish Atlantic fleet is liable to operate in Spanish
              waters. In addition, a few Community vessels may also fish within the Spanish EEZ.
              The main concerned activities involve static gear, bottom trawlers longliners for
              demersal species, purse seiners for small pelagic species, poll line and live bait for
              albacore and bluefin tunas.

     1.4.2.   Community, international and third countries waters

              In 2002, mainly 1,513 Spanish vessels using bottom or pelagic trawls (the latter
              being prohibited in the Spanish waters), 1,080 vessels using fixed gears and 769
              purse seiners targeting small pelagic species were fishing in Community waters.
              When using pelagic trawl and fixed gear, such as pelagic longlines for swordfish, the
              concerned vessels may operate also in international waters. The purse seiners
              registered in the harbours of the Bay of Biscay and Galicia traditionally change for
              live bait method during the summer in order to target albacore and bluefin tunas in
              Community and international waters.

              The international and third country waters were fished by 335 trawlers and purse
              seiners, 255 vessels using fixed gears and 39 distant waters purse seiners for tunas
              and other related species. The trawlers are present in almost all the areas covered by
              fisheries agreements (Mauritania and ACP countries), those covered by Regional
              Fishing Organisations (RFO) such as NAFO, NEAFC, and the CCMLAR south-west
              Atlantic area, notably Falkland Islands. The main operational area for fixed gear is
              the area covered by fisheries agreements between the EU and third countries. The
              purse seiners targeting tunas operate in Community, international and third country
              waters in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.

     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              Spain has 150 main landing harbours, as well as numerous other ports or landing
              points, along a coastline of approximately 7,880 km (including the Canaries and
              Balearics Islands).




EN                                                 179                                                  EN
               In the Mediterranean Sea most of the vessels are landing every day, which is also
               true for the whole coastal fleet on both coasts. These daily landings involve a large
               number of vessels, more than 10,000.

               On the Atlantic side, Spanish vessels fishing in Community waters use mainly 12
               Spanish harbours, inter alia Ondarroa and Vigo, six French, six Irish, mainly
               Casteltownbere and nine British, mainly Lochinver in Scotland. However, in
               accordance with Community Regulations regarding hake emergency measures, Spain
               has drawn up a list of thirteen designated harbours for landings exceeding 500 kg of
               hake. Landings by vessels from other Member States in Spain in 2001 consisted of
               552 landings by French vessels, 530 by British vessels, 160 by Irish vessels, 34 by
               German vessels and 51 by Dutch vessels, mainly in the harbours of Vigo and Marin
               in Galicia, Pasajes and Ondarroa in the Basque Country, Santander in Cantabria and
               Las Palmas in Gran Canaria.

               The annual Spanish landings reach approximately 1,000,000 tonnes.

               France, Ireland and the UK are the main sources of imports within the Community.
               From 2000 to 2002 the total import was respectively 1,443,906, 1,612,706 and
               1,466,836 tonnes, while the total export was 841,431, 960,438 and 817,194 tonnes.
               The deficit in the trade balance increased from 1,974,000 M€ to 2,080,000 M€.

     1.4.4.    Marketing, processing and transport

               The major part of tunas, sardines and anchovies are processed in canning factories.
               Most of the imported fish goes directly to the processing industry, of which the main
               centres are based around the main landing ports in the North and North West of
               Spain, in Andalusia, in the Canary Islands, and the factories located in the area of
               Madrid.

               Due to the distance from their home port to the areas where they are operating, a
               certain number of vessels land abroad, mostly in Ireland, Scotland and France. In this
               case the landings are transported to Spanish first sale markets by lorry or refrigerated
               containers.


     2.        LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.      Legislation and administration

               Until March 2001, general rules for Spanish fisheries were provided by the Royal
               Decree N° 681/1980 of 28 March 1980, and on the basis of its delegation provisions.
               In addition to these, there have been specific statutes adopted for different types of
               fisheries. However, since 1986, national legislation has undergone changes owing to
               the implementation of Community demands. Consequently, Law N° 3/2001 of the 26
               of March 200168, concerning the State Sea Fisheries (hereafter the Sea Fisheries
               Act), was adopted and is now the main piece of legislation in Spain covering the
               whole area of sea fisheries.



     68
              New Fisheries Act



EN                                                  180                                                   EN
           As a result of the Spanish constitutional development the whole territory of Spain is
           divided into regions known as the Autonomous Communities, and the organisation
           of fisheries administration reflects that fact. The Spanish constitution provides that
           the responsibility for fishing activities performed in external waters is placed with
           the central state authorities,69 while the Autonomous Communities are responsible
           for dealing with fishing activities carried out in internal waters70. Therefore, the
           regulation of the sea fisheries in external waters is the exclusive competency of the
           State, while the powers concerning the regulation of the fishing sector are shared
           between the State, which has the exclusive jurisdiction to lay down basic regulations
           governing the fishing industry, and the competent authorities of the Autonomous
           Communities, being responsible for adopting, enforcing and developing the State
           laws.

           The new Fisheries Act confirms that the regulation of the sea fisheries in external
           waters is the exclusive competency of the State. The Autonomous Communities,
           whose powers were initially restricted to fishing activity in internal waters, also have
           competencies as regards the commercialisation of fishing products and for
           structuring the fishing sector. These competencies notably refer to fishermen’s
           professional situation, vessel construction, official registers, the ship-owners and
           fishermen’s associations (Cofradias de pescadores), the Producer Organisations and
           the auctions.

           The authority primarily responsible in Spain for implementation of the national
           fisheries policy, and thus the Common Fishery Policy, is the Ministry of Agriculture,
           Fisheries and Food (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, hereafter
           MAPA). Within the Ministry, the General Secretariat of Maritime Fisheries
           (Secretaria General de Pesca Marítima, hereafter SGPM) has executive
           responsibilities for implementing fisheries policy. The central administration of
           SGPM is based in Madrid while governmental delegations or sub-delegations are
           established in the Autonomous Communities. The Law 3/2001 has created the
           Fishing National Council (Consejo Nacional Pesquero) as a co-ordinating body in
           fisheries matters between MAPA and the Autonomous Communities, and the
           Advisory Committee of the Fishing Sector (Comite Consultivo del Sector Pesquero)
           as a consultation body between MAPA and the representatives of the fishing sector.

           Fisheries control and co-ordination of control activities of sea fisheries in external
           waters are the responsibility of the State until the first sale, through MAPA and
           SGPM and particularly through the General Sub-Directorate for Fisheries Inspection
           (Sub-direccion General de Inspeccion Pesquera, hereafter SGIP), a part of the
           General Directorate for Fishing Resources (Dirección General de Recursos
           Pesqueros, hereafter DGRP). The SGIP forms the national fisheries inspectorate.

           The control competencies of the SGIP and Spanish national inspectors – some based
           in Madrid but the majority in the delegations – refer to the fisheries in Spanish waters
           outside of base lines. They include fleet registration, licensing and conditions for
           fishing activities, as well as fisheries in international and third country waters. The
           competencies cover catches and landings up to first sale, fish transport but before the


     69
          Article 149.1.(13 and 19) of the Spanish Constitution.
     70
          Article 148.1.(11)of the Spanish Constitution.



EN                                                     181                                            EN
             transport starts (and only if the sale is not carried out in the auction at the place of
             landing), the import of catches where the first sale or landings are made outside
             Spain, the quota and fishing effort management.

             The Guardia Civil del Mar, under the Ministry of Interior (Ministerio del Interno),
             has competency to carry out fisheries controls on shore and at sea, mainly in the
             external territorial waters. The Spanish Navy has competencies in Spanish waters
             and also participates in fisheries inspection programmes in waters covered by
             Regional Fishing Organisations, e.g. NAFO or NEAFC. For both bodies, these duties
             are combined with other control responsibilities, and are carried out under the
             guidance and the co-ordination of the SGPM.

             The General Directorate of the Merchant Navy (Dirección General de la Marina
             Mercante, hereafter DGMM), part of the Ministry of “Equipment” (Ministero de
             Fomento, hereafter MdeF) is responsible for authorising the construction and
             modification of Spanish vessels and for issuing the required vessels certificates.

             The control of fishing activities carried out in internal waters or fisheries related
             activities after first sale are the exclusive competence of the Autonomous
             Communities. In addition, they are empowered to control transport activities.
             However, for the control of transports of fish products they depend on the
             participation of the Guardia Civil de Tráfico or the municipal police (Policia
             Municipal), authorities responsible for the control of traffic on the roads. Certain
             Autonomous Communities, such as Catalonia and the Basque Country, have their
             own police to carry out these tasks.

             The Cofradias de Pescadores71, associations of an equal number of seamen and ship-
             owners, are administrative bodies under public law carrying out tasks of consultation
             and collaboration with the administration on issues of general interest issues and
             referring to fishing activities and marketing. There are 225 Cofradias in Spain, of
             which 88 in the Mediterranean. They are grouped into a national federation. As
             consultation and collaboration bodies, they play a very important role, and they
             manage the major part of Spanish auctions.

     2.2.    Powers of control

             Sea fisheries inspectors of the state derive their powers from Articles 38 and 39 in
             the Sea Fisheries Act. For instance, Article 38(2) describes the powers the inspector
             has regarding access to premises and documents. Inspectors may, when necessary
             and within the respective fields of competencies of their organisations, board fishing
             vessels, enter private premises, seize documentary evidence for further investigation
             etc. Article 39(3) provides that the powers to inspect can be exercised up to the first
             sale of the fish or, if the fish is not sold in the auction at the place of landing, before
             the transport of the fish has commenced. Therefore, to stop a car will always need the
             assistance of the police.

             The Autonomous Communities have the corresponding powers as regards fishing in
             internal waters and after first sale.


     71
            Royal Decree 670/1978, of the 11March 1978 and Order of 31st August 1978.



EN                                                    182                                                  EN
     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            The Spanish sanctioning system is predominantly relying on administrative penalties.
            Responsibility for enforcement of the fisheries rules is divided between the central
            administration and the Autonomous Communities, depending on jurisdiction. As
            regards the central authorities, depending on the seriousness of an infringement, a
            sanctioning decision is taken on different levels of the administration, with the
            majority of decisions taken centrally in Madrid.

            With the introduction of the new Sea Fisheries Act in 2001, all infringements of the
            CFP are defined and detailed in this Act (Title V of the Act). Chapter 1 (Articles 89 –
            94) contains general provisions on liability, statute of limitation, interim measures
            etc. Chapter 2 (Articles 95 – 97) contains the description of the different
            infringements pertaining to sea fisheries in external waters, and these are divided into
            three separate levels; minor (“leves”), serious (“graves”) and very serious (“muy
            graves”). Article 102 in the Sea Fisheries Act indicates the range of fines applicable
            to each of the categories of infringements. For minor infringements the range is € 60
            – 300, for serious infringements € 301 – 60,000 and for very serious infringements €
            60,001 – 300,000.

            The category of serious infringements is the most important one (apparently 90-95 %
            of all detected infringements belong to this category). The serious infringements are
            sub-divided into infringements concerning the exercise of fishing activity,
            infringements concerning the fish or species caught and infringements concerning
            gear. This list covers most of the infringements covered by the CFP.

            The list of very serious infringements is fairly short, and contains infractions such as
            serious obstruction of inspections, fishing with explosives and the obtaining of rights
            to fish on the basis of false information. Significantly it also mentions the violation
            of obligations contained in international fisheries agreements, when such a violation
            puts in peril the execution of such agreements.

            Chapter 3 (Articles 98 – 100) contains the same three categories – minor, serious and
            very serious – for infringements committed as regards the organisation of the sector
            or in the commercialisation of fish and fish products. Such infringements may have
            to do with the non-compliance with rules on engine power, construction of vessels,
            transport of fish etc.

            The persons liable for an infringement according to Spanish law can be both
            individuals and legal entities. For example both the master of the vessel and the
            company that owns it can be held liable, and if the degree of complicity cannot be
            determined the responsibility is joint and several. So, normally the sanction decision
            is directed to both the master and the owner.

            Infringements detected by one of the competent authorities responsible for
            monitoring and enforcement of the fisheries legislation are noted on an inspection
            form (“acta de inspección”). If the detected infringement has been committed by a
            local fisherman (or a foreign vessel), the case is dealt with by the inspection authority
            where the infringement is discovered. If the fisherman is domiciled elsewhere in
            Spain, the dossier is transmitted to the authority where the person lives. The dossier
            is sent to the Delegado del Gobierno of the region, who will take a formal decision to



EN                                               183                                                    EN
            initiate the procedure (“acuerdo iniciación”). Someone is designed to instruct the
            case (“Instructor”), i.e. to prepare the case. The instructor notifies the fisherman of
            the accusations.

            After having given the fisherman the opportunity to express his views, the instructor
            drafts a motivated suggestion for the outcome of the case (“propuesta”). This will
            include the proposed level of fine and any accessory sanctions, such as confiscation.
            This document is notified to the fisherman, who then has a second chance to
            comment. If it concerns a minor infringement, the case will be decided there and
            then, by the Delegado del Gobierno. For serious and very serious infringements, the
            case will be sent to MAPA in Madrid for decision. A case-handler at MAPA will
            prepare the dossier for decision, review the documentation and if necessary change
            the fine proposed by the instructor.

            Serious infringements are decided by the “Director general de Pesca Marítima” of
            MAPA in Madrid, and very serious infringements are decided by the “Secretario
            general de Pesca Marítima” (if the fine is less than € 150,000) or by the minister (for
            fines exceeding € 150,000).

            Articles 103 and 104 in the Sea Fisheries Act provide for accessory sanctions, inter
            alia in the form of confiscation of catch and/or gear. These two provisions list the
            infringements for which confiscation can be an accessory consequence. In practice,
            what is confiscated is undersize fish and gear which is illegal in all circumstances.
            Another of the accessory sanctions is the possibility to restrict the right to fish or to
            commercialise fish products, either through a general prohibition to carry out fishing
            activities or through suspension, withdrawal or non-renewal of any authorisations
            (special licenses). This can be decided for up to three years for serious and five years
            for very serious infringements. Withdrawal of the right to fish appears however
            extremely rare.

            A sanction decision can be appealed to the nearest next level in the administration.
            Appeals to at least the first administrative level are very common, and the estimated
            percentage of cases appealed range between 80 and 90%. However, very few of these
            appeals are successful. Further appeals may be made to an administrative tribunal.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

            As the competencies on fisheries control activities are spread between central
            administration and the Autonomous Communities, the same goes for the means of
            control.

     3.1.   Budget resources

            Information on the budget resources allocated for fisheries control in Spain, for the
            central administration and for the Autonomous Communities, is not available. The
            Directorate General of Fisheries Resources in SGPM, which comprises the
            Inspectorate, has been allocated € 32.2 million in the 2000 budget, 33.7 in 2001 and
            35 in 2002.




EN                                               184                                                    EN
            The Fish Markets Data Collection Network was contracted out, as a technical
            assistance contract, to a public enterprise for € 433,774 in 2001.

     3.2.   Human resources

            MAPA/SGPM deployed 65 national fisheries inspectors in 2000, 74 in 2001 and 62
            in 2002. Respectively 51, 54 and 52 of these were based in the Government
            Delegations in the Autonomous Communities. The remainder, 14, 20 and 10 were
            based in Madrid. MAPA have historically recruited inspectors with practical or
            seagoing background, e.g. from the fishing industry, the naval service or the
            merchant navy. The basis for recruitment has been widened to include people with a
            background in marine biology and ecology. The inspectors are trained in legal
            matters by the relevant legal unit within MAPA. For theoretical and technical
            training, MAPA regularly utilises its research vessels which are equipped for
            carrying out fishing operations. Final training is provided in the ports.

            The Spanish Navy and the Guardia Civil del Mar provide human resources for
            fisheries inspection activities, mostly at sea, with the collaboration and under the
            guidance and co-ordination of the SGPM

            The 10 Autonomous Communities involved with fisheries deployed a total number
            of 149 fisheries inspectors in 2001 and 143 in 2002, ranging from 2 to 26 by region
            depending on their importance in terms of fishing activities. The Autonomous
            Communities of Galicia, Andalusia, Canary Islands, Cantabria and Asturias, the most
            active in this field, deployed approximately 75 % of these inspectors.

     3.3.   Other resources

            The SGPM uses the maritime means of the Spanish Navy and the Guardia Civil del
            Mar to carry out fisheries inspections at sea. The Spanish Navy provides 32 patrol
            vessels, of which 3 are exclusively dedicated to fisheries inspection and surveillance,
            and the Guardia Civil del Mar have 19 light patrol vessels of which 2 exclusively for
            fisheries monitoring. In addition, SGPM can use the services of 3 helicopters and 2
            aeroplanes.

            The nautical means of the Autonomous Communities consist of 59 patrol vessels, of
            which the major part consists of light vessels. They also can benefit of aerial
            surveillance capabilities by having their own helicopter or aeroplane, by hiring them
            or by contracting services with an agency.

     3.4.   Financial aid program

            For the period 2000-2002, the Community financial contribution allocated to Spain
            for fisheries control was as follow (in €):

                         2000                   2001                  2002

                       5,858,626             4,546,249              6,279,917

            Spain increased its monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities by the
            acquisition of three 25 m light patrol vessels, as well as another 20 m patrol vessel.



EN                                               185                                                  EN
            Spain invested in modernising the aerial control units and acquired two bi-turbo
            patrol aircrafts. The “Albatros” type surveillance vessels were modernised.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control database

            SGPM has developed a computerised system which automatically calculates
            individual and aggregated effort uptake figures. The system is based on direct
            transmission to SGPM of fishing effort information included in the hail messages
            from vessels fishing where fishing effort is regulated. The catches are also recorded.
            The positions of the vessels are provided by the satellite based monitoring system
            (VMS).

            In Spain all vessels greater than 10 metres are issued with EC logbooks. Harbour
            offices are responsible for collecting logbooks and landing declarations and for
            transmitting them to SGPM through the Delegations. The data is incorporated into
            the central database for quota uptake calculation and statistics purposes. SGPM has
            also implemented a system for monitoring landings and transhipments by third
            country vessels in Spanish waters and harbours. The information managed by the
            system consists of applications for a permit to land or tranship, issued permits and
            landing or transhipment declarations.

            The transmission of the sales notes to the General Directorate for Structures and
            Fisheries Market of SGPM is the responsibility of the Autonomous Communities. A
            Fish Markets Data Collection Network was implemented in 2001, under the co-
            operation Agreement between MAPA and the Autonomous Communities. The
            network is used for forwarding first sales notes from the auction centres through
            markets associations to Autonomous Communities and then to MAPA There have
            been further developments in order to link licences and landings to first sales notes.
            This should allow to verify the enforcement of Common Market Standards and to
            control consistency between weight and prices and between landings and sales.

     4.2.   VMS

            The Spanish Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) is situated in MAPA in Madrid,
            where the SGIP is responsible for receiving and processing the VMS data.

            The Spanish national authorities have established a satellite based monitoring system
            (VMS) to monitor the positions of 1,532 vessels of the Spanish fishing fleet in line
            with the Control Regulation. Still in accordance with the said regulation, they have
            adopted technical and operational measures to ensure that the VMS is fully
            operational and defined functions and provided staff to the FMC. Also, a
            comprehensive list of co-ordinates which delimit Spanish EEZ has been transmitted,
            and facility for remote access by DG Fish by online sessions to the computer files
            containing the data recorded by the FMC has been provided.

            The automatic data processing permits that position reports from a Spanish fishing
            vessel can be automatically forwarded to the coastal-state involved with the fishing




EN                                              186                                                  EN
            area, and to make cross checks with the fleet register. All received position reports
            are stored in the FMC.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Spanish sovereignty or jurisdiction

            One of the main objectives of the Spanish inspection authorities has been to provide
            permanent inspection and surveillance to prevent both the catch and the sale of
            undersize fish and the use of illegal gear. Another priority is the fisheries for highly
            migratory species fisheries, under the ICCAT Mutual Inspection Programme, in both
            the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. This concerns notably the bluefin tuna
            fisheries in the Spanish Mediterranean Fishing Protection Zone, which are carried
            out by Spanish and foreign vessels, mostly French.

     5.2.   International waters and third country waters

            Within the framework of international fisheries inspection programmes, Spanish
            patrol vessels are commissioned yearly in NAFO and NEAFC areas. The albacore
            tuna campaign in the Atlantic remains a priority for the Spanish inspection
            authorities, and several patrol vessels provide a permanent assistance to the tuna fleet
            during which some inspections take place. In addition a total of 1,471 messages in
            2000 and 1,135 in 2001 were sent by Spanish vessels to SGPM in accordance with
            the hail system implemented in areas where fishing effort is regulated.

     5.3.   Landings

            Spanish authorities have stressed that landing control is a priority in most of the
            fisheries. They have reported that they concentrate their effort, according to
            scheduled objectives, notably on NAFO and NEAFC fisheries, on landings of cod
            and hake, in application of the Community cod recovery plan and hake emergency
            measures, as well as ICCAT regulated species. They also pay a general attention to
            preventing both the catch and sale of undersize fish and the use of illegal gear. They
            have reported that all vessels operating in the NAFO area were controlled in 2000
            and 2001, and that those vessels which are denounced by a contracting party as
            contravening the rules are almost always inspected in port in the presence of
            Commission fisheries inspectors.

            Spain paid particular attention to the bluefin tuna landings, notably in the Spanish
            Mediterranean FPZ. In addition, they are concerned by implementing and enforcing
            specific requirements to monitor the bluefin tuna fattening activity.

            As a part of the co-operation and commitments between United Kingdom and Spain,
            landings carried out by fishing vessels flying the British flag are controlled, and in
            application of the Control Regulation Spain has co-operated with Portugal, France
            and Ireland on the inspection of vessels or lorries carrying fish coming from these
            countries. Since May 2000, special objectives have been set to eradicate the entry
            and sale in Spanish harbours of illegal catches of Patagonian toothfish, a CCMLAR
            regulated species.




EN                                               187                                                   EN
     5.4.   Marketing and transport

            The Fish Markets Data Collection Network was implemented in 2001 in order to
            verify the enforcement of Common Market Standards and to control consistency
            between weight and prices and between landings and sales. In order to achieve its
            objective to prevent both catch and sale of undersize fish, Spain tries to keep national
            inspectors operating on a permanent basis in nearly all fish markets, in co-operation
            with the Autonomous Communities when necessary. Also, in application of the
            Framework Agreement for 2001 between the Ministry of Interior and MAPA,
            fisheries control, inspection and surveillance activities have been regularly carried
            out, in co-relation with the use of data provided by the Fish Markets Network,
            basically regarding the observance of the minimum size and of the Common Markets
            standards, in first sales markets and during transport.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            The national inspection services carried out 5,661 inspections in 2000, 10,410 in
            2001 and 7,186 in 2002, resulting respectively in 727, 846 and 1,295 infringements
            being found. The SGPM inspectors performed 379 inspections at sea in 2000, 325 in
            2001 and 401 where they respectively detected 209, 129 and 152 infringements. The
            fisheries monitoring by aerial surveillance resulted in 2,151 sightings in 2000, 2,069
            in 2001 and 2,059 in 2002, with 315, 181 and 351 infringements detected. Besides,
            the Guardia Civil del Mar performed 647 inspections in 2000, 5,381 in 2001 and
            1,124 in 2002 where respectively 553, 2,129 and 600 infringements were notified. In
            2002, the rate of inspections in relation to the number of fishing vessels was 1 to
            2.07.

            The inspection services of the Autonomous Communities carried out 52,281 fisheries
            inspections in 2001 and 44,972 in 2002.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In the annual reports submitted by Spain it was reported that the national inspection
            services detected 1,669 infringements in 2000, 4,165 in 2001, and 2,046 in 2002.
            Approximately from 90 to 95 % of all infringements detected on national level are
            categorised as serious infringements and therefore decided by SGPM in Madrid. The
            annual number of infringements involving Spanish fishing vessels has been
            increasing over the years. However, it has to be taken into account that for 2001
            approximately 35% of these cases were detected by the Guardia Civil del mar and
            mainly contained infringements committed in the recreational fishery.

            The reports submitted in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 1447/1999
            gives a slightly different picture. Spanish authorities reported to the Commission to
            have detected for the years 2000-2002, respectively 3,291, 3,717 and 1,785 serious
            infringements, of which 98 % in 2001 and 72 % in 2002 concerned vessels flying the
            Spanish flag or involving Spanish fishermen. These infringements covered 18 types
            of behaviour as provided in the list of the said regulation in 2000, 20 in 2001 and 13
            in 2002. For each year, the two main types were fishing without holding a licence or
            another authorisation (C1) and unauthorised fishing (D5). Administrative procedures
            were applied in most of the cases while 4 cases were subjected to both penal and




EN                                               188                                                   EN
            administrative procedures in 2001. Penalties were imposed in 2,966 cases in 2001
            and in 1,614 cases in 2002.

            In 2001, the average fine applied in 2,803 cases was € 928, ranging from € 3,005 for
            failure to stow unauthorised gear (D3) to € 241 for falsifying, deleting or concealing
            the identification marks of the fishing vessels (C3). The seizure of catches and gear
            was ordered in 43 cases, of which 21 cases for fishing without authorisation (C1). No
            case of licence withdrawals was notified by Spain.

            In 2002 the average fine was reported to be € 2,126, ranging from € 105,628 for
            failure to stow unauthorised gear (D3) to € 545 for fishing using falsified documents
            (C2). In addition, Spain reported to have ordered the seizure of catches or gear in all
            these cases. No case of licence withdrawals was notified by Spain.


     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            In order to involve and co-ordinate the resources of the Spanish Navy, Guardia Civil
            del Mar and of the Autonomous Communities for participation in fisheries control
            and inspection activities, joint programmes or agreements have been implemented
            between MAPA and the relevant ministries or regional authorities. Meetings of the
            Permanent Liaison and Co-ordination Committee of MAPA and the Ministry of
            Defence took place for following up the joint agreement between the two Ministries
            with regards to fisheries control and monitoring.

            The co-operation between MAPA and the Ministry of Interior has been settled by a
            signature of a framework agreement and the implementation of an Annual
            Programme for the Integrated Monitoring of Fishery Activities (PACIAP), under
            which joint operations of inspection, control and surveillance can be carried out by
            the combined maritime and airborne services of the Guardia Civil del Mar.

            Co-operation agreements have been signed between MAPA and the Autonomous
            Communities in order to exchange, within the framework of their respective areas of
            responsibility, information, maritime and aerial resources, and to carry out joint
            activities for controlling the observance of the fish minimum size in the markets, the
            internal waters, the harbours and during the transport.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            A tripartite co-operation agreement has been signed between the competent
            authorities of Ireland, United Kingdom and Spain, which has been extended to
            France, for the monitoring of landings by British fishing vessels in Spanish harbours,
            and landings in British, Irish and French harbours by Spanish vessels, in order to
            ensure proper control of Spanish quota. Also, co-ordination took place with France,
            Ireland, United Kingdom and Portugal on fisheries of common interest, and in
            particular during the tuna campaigns in the Atlantic Ocean.

            There has been a mutual exchange of inspectors with Morocco in the ports of Las
            Palmas and Agadir, when the agreement between the Kingdom of Morocco and the
            European Union was still in place. On an annual basis Spain commissions patrol


EN                                               189                                                  EN
          vessels and exchange information within international fisheries control and
          monitoring programmes implemented in the NAFO and NEAFC regulatory areas.


     7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

          The monitoring and control of the Spanish fisheries is a real challenge, since it
          involves a very large coastal, middle and distant waters fleet. It is the first in the
          European Union in number of fishermen, the second in terms of landings and engine
          power, the third in number of vessels. In addition, these vessels use a wide range of
          fishing gear, catching numerous species landed in a high number of landing points,
          both on the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts.

          In accordance with the Control Regulation, Spain has implemented a control system
          for fishing activities. The legal basis and the administrative structures provide a
          framework for implementation and enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy. As
          a result of the Spanish autonomy process, competencies in fisheries matters are
          spread over both the national authorities and the Autonomous Communities. The
          State keeps the exclusive jurisdiction over sea fishing in the external waters and lays
          down the basis of the laws regulating the fishing economic and professional sector.
          The Autonomous Communities are responsible for adopting, enforcing and
          developing them and for fishing and aquaculture activities in the internal waters.

          The General Directorate for Fisheries of MAPA has the overall responsibility for
          fisheries management and for implementing and co-ordinating the fisheries control
          programmes. It is responsible for carrying out actual fisheries control and inspection
          activities through its fisheries inspectorate. The control powers given to the
          inspectors, based both in the central administration and on the spot, allow them to
          actually accomplish their duties. All control activities that refer to the internal waters
          or are performed after the first sale of fishing products are the exclusive competence
          of the Autonomous Communities’ inspection services. However, a high level of co-
          operation between the two administrations is necessary to implement the appropriate
          conditions in order to carry out actual control and surveillance in marketing and
          during transport.

          Spain has made a significant legislative effort to better regulate fisheries, and MAPA
          has regularly increased its resources and improved its investigation tools for fisheries
          control and monitoring activities. Co-operation and co-ordination agreements with
          the Ministries of Defence and Interior, but also with the Autonomous Communities,
          have provided significant maritime and aerial means and also additional staff in order
          to face the size and the complexity of the Spanish fishing industry.

          For the actual segmentation it is felt that there are many types of fishing vessels,
          operating with different gears in different fisheries, which should in fact be attributed
          to more appropriate segments. However, the figures have been accepted for MAGP
          IV purposes, and the relation between the fishing possibilities available and the
          capacity of the segments are generally in balance, with the exception of the
          polyvalent coastal fleet. Nevertheless, the reliability of data concerning tonnage,
          engine power and characteristics of the vessels are doubtful, since actual verification
          of this information, transmitted by the Minister of the Merchant Navy, is not done by
          MAPA itself.



EN                                              190                                                    EN
           In the most important harbours, notably in Galicia and the Canary Islands, the
           number of national fisheries inspectors appears to be clearly insufficient to ensure a
           satisfactory control of the quantities of fish landed and auctioned, at least under the
           conditions where these activities are carried out. In addition, it has been observed by
           Commission inspectors that the control activities by the national inspection services
           tends to be concentrated mainly to normal working hours, leaving week-ends and
           other odd hours without inspection coverage. There is furthermore no general system
           for pre-notification of landings72, which could help to target inspections. It has also
           been frequently admitted by the Spanish authorities that the level of staff is
           disproportionate to the areas and number of landings and landing points to be
           covered.

           The methodology used by inspectors during vessel inspections appears generally
           adequate, and the level of expertise among the national inspectors has not been
           questioned. The national inspectors do however not systematically follow up on port
           inspections by making additional crosschecks against landing declarations, sales
           notes, VMS information or the information from entry and exit reports when vessels
           are operating in, for example, Western Waters.

           Spain has stressed landings control as a major priority. However, whatever the
           control means available all landings cannot be inspected, with the possible exception
           of NAFO landings. In reality, 10% of the landings are controlled in the best of cases.
           Landing controls is certainly one of the most efficient control methods, but the
           effects on those vessels which are not inspected are less than certain. In fact, it would
           appear that the declared quantities of quota species are considerably higher for the
           vessels which are inspected than for the ones that are not. This means that additional
           measures and further investigations are needed to verify the possible mis-declaration
           by vessels which are not inspected. Systematic cross-checking of landing
           declarations and sales notes is one such measure.

           The recent implementation of a co-operation between the national authorities and the
           Autonomous Communities should have positive effect in this respect. However, with
           regards to forwarding of sales notes and from a technical point of view, this co-
           operation was still not effective at the end of 2002. A delay of 2.5 months was still
           needed in the transmission of sales notes from Galicia, while the Basque Country
           was not yet transmitting sales notes at all. This does not allow reliable crosschecks
           between landing declarations and sales notes and to verify why discrepancies exist,
           as it has been observed in certain harbours, between information transmitted to
           MAPA and the Autonomous Communities.

           In Spain, fishing and first sale activities are managed by the same entities or by
           bodies with a strong economic link, since most of the auctions are under the
           responsibility of ship owners and fishermen’s associations. In this case there is no
           full guarantee that landings declarations can be reliably verified by the means of first
           sales notes, but rather by the means of second or third sales notes. The marketing
           activities being the competency of Autonomous Communities authorities, such a
           control methodology would require a closer collaboration between national and


     72
          Apart from for Spanish surface longliners operating in international waters, Spanish vessels targeting
          swordfish and fishing vessels from other Member States and third countries.



EN                                                    191                                                          EN
     autonomous level than what is the case at present. In practice the majority of the
     Autonomous Communities do not have the capacity or resources to implement the
     extensive rules that exist in the area of fisheries.

     The suppression of landing and commercialisation of undersize fish is still a major
     priority for the Spanish authorities. However, Commission fisheries inspectors still
     observed the marketing of undersize fish both at first and second sale during the
     reference period.

     The administrative system for sanctioning of fisheries infringements used in Spain
     has the advantage of offering an opportunity to create a system which is uniform and
     transparent. The application of the rules is also made easier by the fact that there is
     one central piece of legislation governing all fisheries on state level. There is also a
     trend that the Autonomous Communities adapt their respective legislations in this
     field to the relevant provisions in the Sea Fisheries Act.

     As for the efficiency and deterrence of the system, this is more difficult to assess.
     There are examples of very high fines, but the vast majority of cases appear to be
     sanctioned at the lower end of the available range of fines. There seems to be limited
     use of the possibilities to apply accessory sanctions, such as confiscation and
     withdrawal of licences. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear to what extent the value
     of the catch that has been fished illegally is taken into account when setting the level
     of fines.

     The information provided by Spain in the framework of serious infringements of the
     CFP shows that the average fine increased by more than double the amount from
     2001 to 2002 (€ 928 in 2001, € 2,126 in 2002), but on the other hand, the total
     number of reported infringements decreased from 3,717 to 1,785 during the same
     period. The reason for this, according to the Spanish authorities, is that the
     infringements detected by the Autonomous Communities’ inspection services were
     not included (due to informatics formatting problems) in 2002. The Commission is
     therefore hesitant to draw any more far-reaching conclusions on the basis of the
     information provided by Spain in the context of serious infringements detected and
     sanctioned in 2002.

     Against this background it appears to the Commission that the Spanish authorities
     still have some way to go before the proper enforcement of the CFP can be
     guaranteed. Although Spain has produced a strong effort in the legislative field, it
     does not seem to fully use, or not yet have at their disposal, the means of control and
     verification tools which are necessary to adequately control the activities of the
     Spanish fishing fleet.




EN                                        192                                                   EN
                                        SWEDEN

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            Sweden has coastline in the Baltic Sea and in Skagerrak and Kattegat, including
            a large number of islands. The Swedish fishing industry is the tenth in the
            European Union in number of vessels, the eleventh in terms of tonnage, the
            ninth in terms of engine power, the eleventh in number of fishermen and the
            sixth in terms of catches.

     1.1.   Fleet

            The Swedish fleet is present in the Baltic Sea, in Skagerrak, Kattegat and the
            North Sea, in the international waters of the North East Atlantic and the
            Norwegian EEZ. According to national legislation, the Swedish fleet is
            traditionally shared between ships and boats, a ship being a vessel with an
            overall length of 12 metres or more and a beam of at least 4 meters. The
            Swedish fishing fleet consists of 90% of vessels less than 25 GT. From 2000 to
            2002 the number of vessels with an overall length of more than 24 meters
            decreased from 96 to 85, the whole fleet from 1,951 to 1,818 vessels and the
            total engine power from approximately 240,000 to 225,000 kW.

            The Swedish fleet has been divided into 6 MAGP IV segments. The largest
            segments in terms of number of vessels are, with 77 %, the small scale vessels <
            12 meters fishing in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak (4M1) and, with
            10%, the bottom trawlers fishing cod and nephrops in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat
            and Skagerrak and the North Sea (4M4). The largest segment in terms of engine
            power are, with 33%, the pelagic trawlers and purse seiners fishing small
            pelagic species in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak and the North Sea
            (4M3) and, with 32 %, the small scale vessels < 12 meters (4M1).

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            The coastal fleet, and the fleet of bottom trawlers, purse seiners and vessels
            using pelagic trawl in Community, international and Norwegian waters have
            quota for demersal and pelagic species. For 2001, the total fishing opportunities
            coming from initial quota allocated to Sweden were 297,943 tonnes. Among the
            most important species, herring consisted of 153,217 tonnes, sprat 89,781 tonnes
            and cod 26,243 tonnes. In addition, 125,975 individual pieces of salmon were
            allocated to Sweden. These fishing opportunities represent about 95 % of annual
            Swedish landings which amount from 300,000 to 350,000 tonnes.

     1.3.   National system for management of fleet and fishing opportunities

            Fleet and fishing opportunities are managed through limitation of fleet capacity
            by application of the MAGP IV rules, reduction of fishing effort and quota
            management.




EN                                              193                                             EN
           The National Board for Fisheries (Fiskeriverket, hereafter FV), under the
           Ministry of Agriculture (Jordbruksdepartementet), operates its own centralised
           fishing vessels register based on the information collected during the licensing
           procedures and on the vessels characteristics, notably length, tonnage and
           engine power, mainly provided by the Board of the Maritime Administration
           (Sjöfartsverket, hereafter SFV) operating under the Ministry of Industries
           (Näringsdepartementet). SFV is responsible for maintaining the central vessel
           register.

           The Swedish fishing licensing system is built on three types of licences:
           personal fishing licence (for each individual professional fisherman), vessel
           permits and special fishing permits (Special fishing permits are e.g. used for
           Swedish vessels fishing in third country waters or for specific fisheries in
           Community waters (e.g. mackerel and herring in the North Sea).). They have
           their primary basis in the Fisheries Act, while competencies to adopt more
           precise secondary legislation have been delegated to FV73. Within FV the
           responsibility for issuing the personal fishing licences and the vessel permits has
           been entrusted to the Department of Markets and Structures, while the special
           fishing permits are managed by the Department for Fisheries Control
           (Avdelningen för fiskerikontroll). To be granted a professional licence, the
           fisherman has to be substantially dependent on fisheries for his income and the
           activity must be linked to the Swedish fisheries. Possible links are further
           defined in secondary legislation, whereby links to Swedish fisheries could be
           that at least half of the landings – by value – are made in Sweden, that at least
           half of the fishing trips start from Swedish ports or at least half of the crew is
           domiciled in the country. In addition, for a first licence, existing fishing
           possibilities are taken into account in order to connect the licensing policies with
           quota management measures.

           The vessel permit is compulsory for any vessel with a length of 5 metres or
           more used for professional fisheries at sea. When issuing a vessel permit
           account has to be taken to, inter alia, existing fishing possibilities. The vessel
           permit is the main instrument for checking the relevant data, length, tonnage and
           engine power, concerning fishing vessels. The permit is renewed on a regular
           basis.

           Log sheets, landings declarations and sales notes have to be submitted by
           skippers or buyers to the FV. Within FV, the Fisheries Control Department is
           notably responsible for quota monitoring and fishing statistics. The FV database
           is designed to record, store and report, inter alia, catch, landing and
           transhipment declarations, sales notes, fish withdrawal and quota uptake. In
           2000, the satellite based vessel monitoring system was linked to the fishing fleet
           register and the quota administration database. The FV fisheries database is
           notably used as a support in the administration of quotas, licensing and
           compensation measures.




     73
          Regulation 1994:1716, to be applied by means of its orders, notably Orders FIFS 1995:23.



EN                                                    194                                            EN
              Since 2001, the quota for herring and sprat, which is managed as a joint quota in
              the Baltic Sea, has been managed as a weekly TAC and by restricting the
              number of fishing days per week. Also a summer stop period has been imposed.
              In 2000, rules on prior notification for unsorted pelagic fish landings were
              adopted in order to ensure that the control authorities are informed of all such
              authorised landings. The FV has introduced catch restrictions in the Baltic Sea
              and imposed special reporting requirement in the North Sea. From 2000, the
              mackerel fishery was subject to specific rules, including an obligation to notify
              catches within two hours and to find out whether fishing is still authorised prior
              to a new trip. For quota uptake evaluation, the FV has frequent contact with
              other countries in cases of discrepancies in information and reporting quota
              exchange, and with the fishing industry in connection with fishing conditions.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under Swedish sovereignty or jurisdiction

              The Swedish coastline comprises 2,300 km. However, in several areas this
              straight coastline has to be multiplied owing to the large number of islands and
              bays.

              In 2002, the Swedish fishing fleet consisted of 1,818 licensed vessels, of which
              77 % had a length overall of less than 12 metres and 96 vessels had a length
              overall of more than 24 metres and were thus to be equipped with VMS. The
              whole Swedish fishing fleet is liable to operate in Swedish waters, and it
              consists of a large number of under 12 metre vessels using passive gear fishing
              mainly for demersal species, bottom trawlers for shrimps, nephrops, cod and
              other demersal species, pelagic trawlers and purse seiners for small pelagic
              species, as well as vessels of 12 metres and more using passive gear for cod and
              salmon.

              Third country vessels operate in Swedish waters mainly in the Baltic Sea (from
              Poland, Russia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia). According to the hail messages
              collected, approximately 1,400 fishing trips of such vessels take place annually
              in Swedish waters. Norwegian vessels are present in Swedish waters off the
              west coast.

     1.4.2.   International waters and third countries waters

              During the last few years up to 20 Swedish vessels are undertaking fishing
              operations in international waters, mainly in the North-East Atlantic Ocean.
              These vessels, but also others (clearly more numerous) are prosecuting fisheries
              in the Norwegian EEZ, mainly in the North Sea. Swedish vessels are engaged in
              considerable fisheries in the waters of Third countries (Poland, Russia, Estonia,
              Lithuania and Latvia) in the Baltic Sea area on the basis of fishing agreements
              with these countries.




EN                                                195                                              EN
     1.4.3.   Landings

              According to the structure of the Swedish fleet, consisting of 77 % of small
              scale coastal vessels, the number of landings to monitor is high.

              The structure of the Swedish fishery is widespread. In total 113 different landing
              places are mentioned in the Swedish annual control report of 2001. However,
              pelagic landings, for human consumption as well as for fishmeal and oil
              production and fodder purposes, are concentrated in few ports. 75 % of the total
              quantity is landed at six harbours. The fish intended for human consumption is
              landed in numerous landing places. Large amounts are also landed in Denmark.

              From 2000 to 2002 the annual Swedish landings decreased from 314,329 to
              284,279 tonnes.

     1.4.4.   Import, processing and transport

              The only plant in Sweden for the processing of industrial fish is located in
              Ängholmen on the west coast. Landings of industrial fish also take place in
              Västervik, Simrishamn, Oxelösund and Nynäshamn to be transported to
              Ängholmen or to Denmark, where the biggest landings of industrial fish by
              Swedish vessels are carried out.

              From 2000 to 2002, the annual Swedish imports of fishing products increased
              from 213,646 to 236,983 tonnes while the exports decreased from 312,397 to
              278,040 tonnes. The deficit of the trade balance increased from 2.60 to 2.96 B€.


     2.       LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.     Legislation and administration

              5he main fisheries law in Sweden is the Fisheries Act of 1993 (SFS 1993:787, as
              amended). That law, together with a special law concerning the implementation
              of EC Regulations on the CFP (SFS 1994:1709, as amended; hereafter the EC
              Implementation Law), grant extensive secondary legislative powers to the
              Government. On the basis of these competencies a united national regulation for
              fisheries, aquaculture and fishing industry was adopted (SFS 1994:1716, as
              amended; hereafter the Fisheries Regulation), notably containing supplementary
              rules related to structural measures and fisheries control.

              Pursuant to the Fisheries Regulation, the implementation and the enforcement of
              both EC and national fisheries legislation is the task of the National Board of
              Fisheries (Fiskeriverket, hereafter FV), of which the headquarters are situated in
              Göteborg. This authority is organised as a separate entity with decision-making
              competencies of its own, although it is subordinated to the Ministry of
              Agriculture (Jordbruksdepartementet), which bears the overall responsibility for
              the fisheries policy and the development of national legislation in this field. The
              FV has been entrusted with the overall responsibility for fisheries control, and is




EN                                                 196                                              EN
             authorised to issue regulations for the sector74, in the form of more detailed
             secondary      normative      instruments    called     Orders     (Fiskeriverkets
             Författningssamling, hereafter called FIFS)75. The FV is also the control
             authority in structural, licensing and vessel registration matters and operates a
             centralised fishing vessels register.

             Within FV a specific unit for control has been established, the Department of
             Fisheries Control (Avdelningen för fiskerikontroll, hereafter AFK). The tasks of
             this department comprise satellite monitoring, quota administration, control of
             market regulations as well as the development of systems for fisheries control
             and liaison with other authorities. The AFK collects, checks and records
             logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes as well as compiles statistical
             information on Swedish fisheries.

             Although FV is the main body responsible for fisheries surveillance and
             inspection in relation to the CFP76, the practical responsibility for fisheries
             monitoring and control at sea and during landings has been given to the Swedish
             Coast Guard (Kustbevakningen, hereafter KBV). The KBV is an independent
             public sector authority under the Ministry of Defence which, according to its
             instructions laid down in regulation (1988:256), carries out law enforcement and
             rescue services at sea. The field of operations lies within seven areas of political
             responsibility. Fisheries monitoring has been defined, together with border
             control, as priority tasks for the KBV. Its central administration is located in
             Karlskrona. The operational command is carried out by its four regional centres
             located in Härnösand (North Region), Stockholm (East Region), Karlskrona
             (South Region) and Göteborg (West Region). After the reorganisation of the
             Swedish control system from 1 January 2000, the KBV’s responsibility for
             inspections in ports also includes those of marketing standards. However,
             checks on withdrawal are still carried out by the FV.

             In addition to the aforementioned entities, the Swedish Customs Authority
             (Tullverket) carries out controls of imports of fish and fish products from third
             countries. The National Food Administration Authority (Statens livsmedelsverk)
             takes part in control of fisheries products intended for human consumption. This
             authority is responsible for the control of hygiene on board fishing vessels, at
             landings and when importing and transporting fish. The administration has
             municipal inspectors at its disposal in its control work based at inspection
             stations over the country. The Swedish Bureau for Statistics (Statistiska
             centralbyrån) is responsible for compiling statistics related to fisheries at the
             request of FV

     2.2.    Powers of control

             The powers of control available to Swedish officials, who have been entrusted
             these tasks, are defined in the Fisheries Act and in the EC Implementation Law.


     74
            Regulation SFS 1996:145, as amended.
     75
            The most important of these orders has been – at least as regards fisheries control – Orders FIFS
            1995:23; hereafter referred to, as last amended in 2002, as Orders FIFS 1995:23.
     76
            SFS 1996:145, amended latest SFS 2001:1290.



EN                                                      197                                                     EN
             The control officials are allowed to enter vessels, vehicles, areas, buildings or
             other premises where fish or gear is stored or handled, in order to carry out the
             necessary investigations. They can also demand such information or documents,
             as well as other assistance from the persons in question, which are necessary for
             the control. The control officials are also empowered to seize catches, gears or
             retain the vessel (or other objects) which are necessary for the investigation of
             the infraction or which are likely to be confiscated at a later stage. A decision to
             seize must be notified to the police or the prosecutors. Control officials are also
             empowered to go to buyers and demand access to accounts.

             If, during inspections, suspicions arise about crimes having been committed, the
             KBV officer has police authority according to a particular law. For the purpose
             of inspection and control, the police have an obligation to assist when demanded
             to do so by the inspection authorities. (However, the powers of the police are
             limited to the Swedish territorial waters, while the powers of the Coast Guard
             cover the whole EEZ.). There is no formal requirement that there are two
             inspectors working together at the same time, but this is normally the case.

     2.3.    Follow up of infringements

             The system in place in Sweden for sanctioning infringements of the CFP is
             predominantly based on criminal procedure. The competent control authorities,
             FV and KBV, draft reports of detected infringements. The FV reports are
             submitted to the public prosecutor. The KBV conducts preparatory criminal
             investigations of detected infringements and drafts reports to the police or the
             public prosecutor. The police (or the KBV if requested by the public prosecutor)
             then conduct the necessary supplementary investigations and submit the cases to
             the public prosecutor. Cases are heard in the court of first instance within whose
             jurisdiction the infringement was committed.

             The main provisions as regards sanctions are found in the Fisheries Act.77The
             primary sanction available is a fine, although prison, from six months to two
             years, is provided for as a possible sanction. The Swedish law only states that an
             infringement of the fisheries rules will be sanctioned with a fine. The fine is
             determined on the basis of the daily income of the offender and the perceived
             seriousness of the offence. However, for commercial fishing with a motorised
             fishing vessel, the fine will be set according to the power of the vessel engines,
             calculated in SEK as minimum 10 and maximum 500 times the number of kW
             (with a minimum of SEK 1,000 = € 110).

             The inspection authorities may seize the catch, gear, fishing vessels or other
             objects. This measure can be used if the seized objects are likely to be used as
             evidence in a coming procedure or if it can be assumed that the objects will be
             confiscated. A decision to seize property must be communicated without delay
             to the police or to the prosecutor.


     77
            The Swedish legislation as regards sanctions was substantially amended in 2003. Although
            outside the period which is covered by this report, the following description reflects those
            changes.



EN                                                    198                                                  EN
            All fish caught and gear used illegally shall be confiscated – or their value
            forfeited – if it is not considered manifestly inequitable. An administrative
            forfeiture of an illegal catch is possible regardless of whether guilt can be
            established or not. Anyone who lands an illegal catch, e.g. contrary to by-catch
            rules or because the fish landed is exceeding the quota can be liable to pay a fee,
            even if it is not possible to prove that he has acted with intent or negligently.
            The fee will correspond to the value of the fish landed against the rules.

            A personal fishing licence can be withdrawn if it has been obtained on the basis
            of misleading information or in the case of repeat offences. A new provision
            makes it possible for FV to withdraw a license temporarily – from 2 weeks to 6
            months – by administrative decision, in case of a serious infringement. It is to be
            noted that this administrative sanction cannot be imposed unless there is already
            a conviction by a court.

            Inspections carried out by KBV are documented in an inspection report. The
            officers of KBV have the authority to independently investigate a fisheries
            infringement. When KBV has carried out the preparatory investigation it
            submits the reports, together with other supporting evidence, to the police
            authorities for supplementary investigation and follow-up. The police can also
            give assistance to inspectors at an earlier stage when needed. The KBV can also
            be called upon to assist the police or the public prosecutor in the criminal
            investigation. When the police decide that the case is properly investigated, the
            file is sent to the local prosecutor for possible prosecution.

            Officials from FV have the authority to independently investigate infringements
            detected by them, e.g. after cross-checks of documentation. The case is then
            forwarded to the public prosecutor, who decides on the need for further
            investigation by the police.

            Based on the results of the police’s investigation, the local prosecutor will
            decide if a prosecution should be initiated. The prosecutor’s power to refrain
            from prosecution is however strictly regulated. There are some local prosecutors
            who are specialised in fisheries cases, especially on the west coast of Sweden.

            The authority with jurisdiction to try a fisheries case is the local court of first
            instance, and normal rules of criminal procedure apply. The setting of the fine is
            at the discretion of the court, and the prosecutor has limited possibilities to
            influence the weight of the sanction. Appeals of the courts’ decisions can be
            made to the next instance in the judiciary system, the Court of Appeal.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            For the period in question the FV expenditures for control activities were around
            2.2 M€ per year. Around € 165,000 in 2000, € 154,000 in 2001 and € 250,000,
            of which the half was financed by the European Community, were spent on




EN                                               199                                              EN
            development work. In 2002, KBV used 9.69 M€, 15.6 % of its total expenses,
            for fishery control activities.

     3.2.   Human resources

            The FV has a total of 250 employees, 80 out of whom work in the
            administration headquarters in Göteborg. Out of these, 24 are exclusively
            involved with fisheries control in the Fisheries Control Department.

            In 2000, the KBV had 583 employees, out of whom about 420 were on board
            vessels and 20 employed on aircrafts. For 2001 these numbers were respectively
            606, 420 and 30 and for 2002 they were 600, 420 and 30. None of the officials
            are permanently located to certain ports on shore; instead, all of them have been
            stationed on vessels and aircraft. All officials have been trained for fisheries
            control, but around 50 officers have in addition received special training. In all
            KBV stations and regional centres one fisheries inspector is responsible for
            training and development of fisheries control.

     3.3.   Other resources

            From 2000 to 2002, KBV used 43 vessels, including 27 patrol vessels and 3
            hovercrafts, all of which are available for fisheries monitoring and control
            purposes. Three CASA 212 aircrafts were used for aerial surveillance. The
            aircraft are equipped with radar, computer controlled Infra Red and Ultra Violet
            cameras etc. and have flight autonomy of 5 hours.

     3.4.   Financial aid program

            During the period 2000 – 2002, the Community financial contribution allocated
            to Sweden for fisheries control was as follows (in €):

                      2000               2001               2002

                    834,905            875,861            588,460

            Sweden invested mainly in vessels modernisation, as well as information and
            telecommunications equipment. These projects aim at improving the quality of
            catch reports and of quota monitoring and to increase the speed of information
            transfer and data recording in order to comply with Community regulations. The
            project had progressed further in 2002 with the refinement and adaptation of the
            network and systems.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control data bases

            The FV database is designed to record, store and report on fisheries information
            generated in licensing procedures, fishing operations at sea, landings and
            transhipments, sales transportation and withdrawals of fish from the market. In
            addition it contains information provided by monitoring and control activities



EN                                               200                                             EN
            and by the vessels satellite-based monitoring system, which from 2000 is linked
            to the fishing fleet register and to the quota administration system. The database
            structure is designed to help link and match data from the various sources. The
            fisheries database is used as a support in the administration of quota, licensing
            and compensation issues. All staff at the FV whose duties are connected with
            above mentioned areas have varying level of access to the database.

            The crosschecking of information is built into the system and is carried out by
            the FV. Warning automatically occurs in case of missing information and of
            more than 5 % of discrepancy between the landing declarations and sales notes.
            Catch and landing declarations are crosschecked manually. In 2001, the
            database was still in development, needed manual investigation and did not fully
            take into account the hail messages system. In 2003 a new system will be
            introduced for automatic crosschecking of landing and logbook data with sales
            notes and VMS information.

     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the Control Regulation the Swedish national authorities have
            established a satellite based monitoring system (VMS) to monitor the positions
            of the Swedish fishing vessels for which the VMS Community requirements are
            applicable. On 1st October 2000, the FV introduced a special notification
            requirement for vessels over 20 meters in overall length and tighter requirements
            for VMS transmission when fishing in Öresund. The Swedish authorities have
            adopted the required technical and operational measures to ensure that the VMS
            is fully operational and provided staff in order to serve the Swedish Fishing
            Monitoring Centre (FMC). The FMC is situated in the head office of the FV in
            Gothenburg, where the FV staff is responsible for receiving and processing the
            VMS data. A link has been implemented from the FMC to the operational centre
            of the KBV in Gryt. From 96 vessels with an overall length of 24 meters in 2000
            to 85 vessels in 2002 were involved in this scheme and were communicating
            their positions to the FMC. The FV has developed an automatic system to cross-
            check the VMS data with the logbook.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORECEMENT ACTIVITIES

     5.1.   Waters under Swedish sovereignty or jurisdiction

            The Swedish authorities have implemented an inspection procedure, in order to
            qualify an inspection carried out by the KBV, on shore and at sea, as a full
            inspection. This procedure requires a minimal control checklist to be applied,
            according to vessel size – over or under 10 meters – and to where the
            inspections take place – on shore or at sea. To ensure an adequate decision-
            making tool for carrying out fisheries surveillance, information is gathered on a
            continuous basis. Controls on shore are mainly carried out within the framework
            of the landing inspections.

            From 2000 to 2002, KBV performed at sea respectively 143, 126 and 341 full
            inspections of commercial fishing vessels. Furthermore, in total 19,132, 17,480



EN                                              201                                              EN
             and 41,000 fisheries control measures defined as landing control and control at
             sea of professional and recreational fisheries in the ICES areas III A, III B and
             III D.

             From 2000 to 2002, the FV received from 131,000 to 135,000 reports containing
             catch information from Swedish and foreign fishing activities. Each year 77 %
             of the logsheets and from 40 to 50 % of the sales notes were received within the
             three days and a further approximately 20 % within the seven days. From 35,760
             to 38,000 fishing trips per year were subject to cross-checks between logsheets
             and sales notes. From 40% of those in 2000 and 2001 to 68 % in 2002 were
             approved automatically while the remainder had to be checked manually.

     5.2.    International waters and third country waters

             Sweden has some vessels fishing in international waters mainly for Atlanto-
             Scandian herring in the North-East Atlantic Ocean.

             In 2000, KBV took part in seagoing mission in the North-East Atlantic as part of
             the Community’s commitment within NEAFC scheme on board the Swedish
             vessel KBV 181. They carried out 17 inspections. Sweden also took part in the
             control program in NEAFC in June and July 2002.

             The documents originating from the fisheries prosecuted in third countries
             waters in the Baltic Sea area are processed in the same manner as for other
             fisheries. The Swedish vessels engaged in these fisheries are also obliged to
             receive special fishing permits for these activities.

     5.3.    Landings

             National legislation78 requires all Swedish vessels targeting pelagic species to
             make a four hours prior notification of landing. The prior notification is
             recorded to a computer based random system. The system plots the vessels
             where a sample has to be taken. About 10 % of the pelagic landings are selected
             for physical inspection, including sampling. Discharge may not commence until
             the time indicated on the notice, and KBV is also required to grant a pre-
             authorisation for landing. According to the Swedish authorities, landings control
             is intended, in particular, to ensure the rules restricting quantities, such as for
             quotas, are complied with for both human consumption and industrial (unsorted
             pelagic fish) fisheries. Checks focus mainly on quantity and species, but also
             take in the whole of fishing rules. Landing inspections are also initiated at sea to
             obtain an unbroken chain from fishing activities at sea up to also including first
             sale.

             In the event of a pelagic landing, samples must be taken by KBV in accordance
             with the FV guides about sampling of unsorted pelagic fish. The guides direct
             that samples have to be taken in accordance with Commission requirements79
             and furthermore specify that samples shall be continuously taken during the


     78
            Order FIFS 1995:23, as amended by FIFS 2000:14.
     79
            Council Regulation(EEC) N° 954/87 of 1 April 1987.



EN                                                    202                                           EN
            landing. The sampling results shall be reported to the FV. This is done by the
            means of control documents directly transmitted to FV

            Sweden targets to inspect 2 % of demersal landings and 10 % of pelagic
            landings. From 2000 to 2002, respectively 1,605, 1,040 and 1,104 landing
            controls took place. Approximately 80 % of pre-notified landings by third
            countries vessels were checked.

     5.4.   Import, processing and transport

            Checks on Common Marketing Standards, which is the responsibility of KBV
            since 2000, are an integral part of landing inspections. However, FV remains the
            competent authority for monitoring and controlling the withdrawal of fish and
            the intervention schemes. It has, in particular, been entrusted the task of defining
            procedures, and of carrying out the financial control. In Sweden the fishermen
            are not obliged to land their fish to the auction system; therefore the majority of
            fish is sold through first hand dealers, who have to be authorised by FV.

            FV uses random sampling to ensure that withdrawal prices remain in the range
            approved by the European Community. It uses random checks on sales notes
            and withdrawal forms to verify that the organisations comply with their
            withdrawal prices and do not sell products below those prices. When sellers
            notify withdrawal of products from the markets, FV decides whether the
            withdrawal is to be inspected or if the products can be transported immediately
            to purchasers. In 2000 and 2001, respectively 141 and 59 surpluses were
            reported, of which 7 were inspected in 2000 and 20 in 2001. For 2002 the
            corresponding figures were 74 and 22. The aim is that FV staff shall check all
            consignments of fish notified for withdrawal, which have not already undergone
            marketing standards checks by KBV or are of little value.

     5.5.   Information on inspection and surveillance activity

            The reported number of control measures, which are defined as landing control
            and control at sea of professional and recreational fisheries in the ICES areas
            IIIA, IIIB and IIID carried out by the Swedish Coast Guard, were 19,132 for
            2000, 17,480 for 2001 and 19,103 in 2002. In 2000 507 suspected infringements
            were discovered, while these figures were 493 and 484 for 2001 and 2002.

            However, the number of complete (fulfilling a set number of criteria) sea
            inspections reported was a mere 143 in 2000 and 126 in 2001, while the figure
            for 2002 showed an increase to 341 (The target set was 500, but this could not
            be attained due to technical problems with certain inspection vessels). Complete
            (again, in accordance with certain criteria) landing controls were carried on
            1,605 occasions in 2000, 1,040 in 2001 and 1,104 in 2002.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            In accordance with Community rules, Swedish authorities reported to the
            Commission to have detected for the years 2000-2002, respectively 95, 44 and
            125 serious infringements, of which 75 % in 2001 and 86 % in 2002 concerned



EN                                               203                                               EN
            vessels flying the Swedish flag or involving Swedish fishermen. These
            infringements covered 9 types of behaviour, as provided in the list of the said
            regulation, in 2000 and in 2001 and 10 types in 2002. For 2001 and 2002, the
            two main types were fishing without holding a licence or another authorisation
            (C1), respectively 10 and 55 cases, and falsifying of the data required in the
            control documents (E1), respectively 7 and 27 cases. In 2000 the two main types
            were fishing without holding a licence or another authorisation (C1), 25 cases,
            and unauthorised fishing (D5), 22 cases. Criminal procedures were applied in 16
            cases in 2001 and in 35 cases in 2002. Penalties were imposed in 5 cases in 2001
            and in 6 cases in 2002.

            In 2001, the average fine was € 324 and ranged from € 260 for falsifying the
            data required in the control documents (E1) to € 367 for fishing without holding
            a licence or another authorisation (C1). No seizure or licence withdrawals were
            reported by Sweden.

            In 2002, the average fine was € 536 and ranged from € 100 for unauthorised
            fishing (D5) to € 741 for falsifying the data required in the control documents
            (E1). No seizure or licence withdrawals were reported by Sweden.


     6.     COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            On the 1st February 2000, FV and KBV entered into a co-operation agreement in
            order to develop controls by means of intensified collaboration, notably in areas
            such as operational planning, following up the results of the control activities
            and the strategies and objectives analysis, manual for control work, satellite
            monitoring, information exchange and cost effectiveness. FV also participated
            with teachers in KBV training courses during the year. Still in 2000, FV and
            KBV jointly worked on a special Government brief to develop a fisheries
            monitoring and control system based on risk analysis, on which they presented a
            report to the Government in April 2001. Furthermore there are weekly telephone
            conferences to discuss short term priorities, and general co-operation meetings
            take place once or twice a year.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            The main co-operation partner for Sweden is Denmark. When necessary,
            Sweden co-operates also with other countries having vessels operating in
            Swedish waters or countries where Swedish vessels are active. KBV co-
            operation with authorities of other Member States has increased, especially in
            NEAFC. Likewise does Sweden co-operate with the Baltic Countries in the
            IBSFC context. Sweden took part in the control program in NEAFC in 2001 and
            2002, as well as in the joint inspection program set up by IBSFC in 2000-2002.

            There is an agreement from 1933 with Denmark about the procedure for transfer
            of prosecution to be followed, whereby the matter will be sent directly from
            prosecution authority to prosecution authority. This is the case also for other



EN                                              204                                             EN
          Nordic countries. For transfers of prosecution to other Member States or to
          Third countries, the Convention of Mutual Legal Assistance is applicable. So far
          there have been no transfers of prosecution in fisheries matters. There is also
          some co-operation with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.


     7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

          The Swedish fishing industry is the tenth in the European Union in number of
          vessels, the eleventh in terms of tonnage, the ninth in terms of engine power, the
          eleventh in number of fishermen and the sixth in terms of catches. Fishing
          vessels under 25 GT represent 90% of the fishing fleet and the number of
          vessels with an overall length of more than 24 meters was 85 in 2002.

          In accordance with Community Control Regulation, Sweden has implemented a
          control system for fishing activities. The legal basis and the administrative
          structures, implemented since 1995, provide a framework for the
          implementation and enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy. The National
          Board of Fisheries (FV) has the overall responsibility in fisheries policy
          implementation and enforcement, notably for the implementation of the CFP.
          The operational responsibility in the matter of fisheries control and inspection
          on shore and at sea has however been entrusted to the Swedish Coast Guard
          (KBV).

          The control powers given to the inspectors of KBV and to the FV staff, both in
          the central administrations and on the spot, constitute an adequate basis for the
          accomplishment of the control duties. The technical means at the disposal of
          KBV are quite sufficient. KBV is also equipped with a substantial number of
          personnel to carry out fisheries control, but it must be borne in mind that
          fisheries control is only one priority area among others for KBV, approximately
          25 %.

          The division of responsibilities between FV and KBV naturally constitutes a
          challenge as regards co-operation and co-ordination of activities, as well as
          exchange of information between the authorities involved. Due to the
          organisational structure and relative independence of the Swedish state
          authorities, FV – which carries the main responsibility for the execution of the
          fisheries policy – has limited possibilities to issue binding guidelines to KBV
          concerning the direction, scope or content of the fisheries control to be carried
          out.

          Some mechanisms have been implemented in order to improve co-operation and
          co-ordination between the FV and KB, such as the development of a fisheries
          monitoring and control system based on “risk analysis”, and the two bodies
          entered into a co-operation agreement in order to develop controls by means of
          intensified collaboration. It is however the Commission’s opinion that the co-
          operation between the FV and the KBV in fisheries control matters could be
          significantly improved.




EN                                            205                                              EN
     There are guidelines issued by KBV, for its own organisation, with specific
     instructions on how to conduct inspections and how to proceed when
     infringements are discovered. However, the organisation of the KBV is such that
     the operational command is de-centralised on a regional basis, and each KBV
     unit, or patrol, has a high degree of independence in the execution of its
     responsibilities. It is therefore all the more important that FV and KBV, in a
     concerted fashion, draw up such clear guidelines which enable the individual
     KBV units to accomplish their fisheries control duties.

     The number of inspections, carried out both at sea and on shore, appears to be
     low, regardless of the consideration that a fisheries monitoring and control
     system based on “risk analysis” aims for a maximum efficiency with a minimum
     of controls. Also by the Swedish authorities’ own admission does this risk-based
     control system still have certain shortcomings, notably as to the fulfilment of
     quantified goals set up for each of the segments (Swedish annual report 2002).

     However, the frequency of inspections is not the only criteria to take into
     account, and, based on observations by Commission inspectors, there are some
     doubts about the thoroughness of the monitoring of especially pelagic landings.
     Indeed, despite the introduction of four hours prior notification of landing for
     vessels targeting pelagic species, of which 10 % are subjected to physical
     inspections including sampling, there is no guarantee that the whole procedure
     in order to qualify an inspection as a full inspection is always fully applied. A
     special working group has been established between FV and KBV in order to
     further develop the control in this area.

     This relatively low level of control activity is coupled with a feeble number of
     serious infringements detected (respectively 95, 44 and 125 in 2000, 2001 and
     2002) and reported to the Commission by the Swedish authorities. Although
     observed infringements are usually reported to police authorities and further to
     local prosecutors, very few of them appear to have reached the courts during the
     reporting period. Very few infringements (respectively 5 and 6 in 2001 and
     2002) were sanctioned by court decisions. Penalties are also on a level that
     cannot be considered deterrent (respectively averaging € 324 and € 536 in 2001
     and 2002).

     This general lack of efficiency in the criminal sanctioning procedure may have
     different causes, but it would appear that the judiciary in general does not
     perceive infringements of the fisheries rules as being of a very serious nature. It
     has also been mentioned that the awareness among prosecutors is lacking, with
     some notable exceptions. The co-operation of FV and the KBV with prosecution
     authorities is good in a limited number of cases, but generally co-operation
     could be greatly improved, since it plays an important role in increasing the
     awareness about the seriousness of fisheries infringements.

     However, the national authorities consider the handling times and the length of
     the procedure as the most important problem. Fisheries cases are not given
     priority and take a long time to be processed by the police and the prosecutors,
     again with notable exceptions such as the prosecution authority in Gothenburg.
     To some extent this appears to be valid also for cases which are investigated by



EN                                        206                                              EN
     the FV itself, and the handling of an infringement case within the Board
     sometimes takes unduly long. On the other hand, Swedish prosecutors have
     indicated that the quality of the material delivered by KBV often is insufficient.
     The reports coming from FV were said to be of a higher standard. Better training
     for inspection staff on the follow-up of infringements is therefore desirable, and
     special attention should be given to witness training and to the manner of
     reporting infringements to the police.

     Sweden has implemented a catch and effort registration system in line with
     Community requirements. The return rate of logbooks has been approaching 100
     %, but this does not apply to all other relevant documentation. The control
     databases established in FV make automatic cross-checks between logbook
     information, landing declarations and sales notes. This seems to have a very
     little effect for the time being. However, according to the Swedish authorities
     the development of a new system will improve the situation.

     The provisions of Community Regulation requiring the implementation of VMS
     have been incorporated into national legislation. Sweden successfully
     implemented the first phase of VMS. The FV has developed an automatic
     system to crosscheck VMS data with logbook information, but more staff has to
     be involved at the FMC in order to fully exploit this system. It would also
     appear that KB does not make full use of the VMS information as a control tool.

     Sweden has also implemented some measures to control the development of the
     structure of the fishing fleet, such as the national application of the MAGP IV
     segmentation. However, the national legislation, traditionally allowing a change
     in segments, undermined the whole purpose of MAGP IV, including notably an
     effort reduction objective for one segment. The Commission cannot be
     convinced of the reliability of the national fishing fleet register, notably in
     matter of engine power figures.

     In Sweden, there is no obligation to make first sale through an auction. In fact
     66 % of fish is sold outside the auction system. With regards to pelagic species,
     in order to prevent quota over fishing, Swedish authorities have implemented
     specific rules such as weekly quota management, obligation for prior
     notification of landings and notification of catches. With regards to demersal
     species, landings are generally not restricted to designated ports and prior
     notification of landing is not required, except when cod is caught in the Baltic
     Sea. These circumstances alongside with the form of the coastline and the
     amount of landing places make the tasks of monitoring and control difficult.

     No procedures or guidelines for monitoring and control of fish following first
     sale have been established. Some controls on transport documents up to first sale
     take place, particularly on fish transported to the fishmeal plant in Ängholmen.
     Controls following first sale and focusing on transports are limited.

     As a result, despite unquestionable progress and the efforts made in legislative
     matters and in the implementation of relevant administrative structures, the
     efficiency of the Swedish fisheries control is not commensurate to the control
     means and powers available. In this respect, Commission is convinced that



EN                                        207                                             EN
     significant supplementary effort by the Swedish authorities is necessary in order
     to ensure full compliance by the Swedish fishing fleet with the Common Fishery
     Policy.




EN                                       208                                             EN
                                   UNITED KINGDOM

     1.     SCOPE FOR FISHERIES ACTIVITIES TO BE CONTROLLED

            The UK has a major interest in EU sea fisheries which is reflected in its geographical
            position in the North east Atlantic, a substantial area of the European continental
            shelf lies within British Fishery limits (BFL’s). As a result of the disappearance of its
            deep sea fleet following the loss of access to historical deep water fisheries in the
            Northern Atlantic in the 1960s, the UK industry was seen to be in decline.
            Subsequent modification and diversification of the fleet in the 1970s and 1980s
            enabled a strong and efficient catching industry to develop in regards to the pelagic
            and middle water demersal fisheries of the North Sea, west of Scotland and in the
            south west approaches, as well as mixed fisheries in the Irish Sea, largely based in
            Northern Ireland.

            However, from the beginning of the 1990s the UK fishing fleet, particularly in
            England and Wales, again entered a period of declining fortunes. The inshore and
            middle water fleets of the English east and west coast have all diminished
            significantly with the exception of a few middle ranking ports. The beam trawler
            fleet of the south west of the UK remains particularly active but fishing opportunities
            are limited and there is little in the way of modernisation of the fleet. A large inshore
            fleet of vessels fishing fixed gear for shellfish (crabs and lobster) developed during
            this time and still remains relatively intact. Until the end of the 1990s the Scottish
            North Sea demersal fleet maintained a strong presence in the traditional white-
            fisheries. Since 2000 this fleet has also reduced in numbers as a result of limited
            fishing opportunities, particularly for cod and haddock and the various
            decommissioning schemes introduced by the UK authorities. The pelagic fleet is now
            almost exclusively concentrated in Scotland and due to modernisation still remains a
            major player in relation to European fishing opportunities in the northern Atlantic.

            In the 1980’s a major influence on the structure of the UK demersal fleet was the
            ‘flagging’ of UK vessels to Spanish and Dutch interests. However, by 2000 this
            particular activity had also declined and reduction in the number of vessels involved
            continues.

     1.1.   Fleet

            In the North Sea (ICES II, IV) demersal fisheries are targeted at whitefish species in
            general, notably cod, haddock, nephrops, whiting, saithe, plaice and sole. On the
            south and west coasts and in the Irish Sea (ICES V, VI, VII) the main demersal
            species caught are cod, haddock, whiting, nephrops, hake, ling, sole, plaice and
            anglerfish.

            The pelagic fleet, which is predominantly Scottish registered, targets redfish,
            mackerel, horse mackerel, herring and blue whiting throughout the North Sea and
            Northern Atlantic.

            For the period 2000 to 2002 the UK fleet capacity (according to MAGP IV
            assessment) decreased from 7,786 vessels with a total of 957,556.82 kW and tonnage


EN                                               209                                                    EN
            of 258,345.71 GT to 7,546 vessels with 908,500.40 kW and tonnage of 237,917.65
            GT. This represents an overall decrease of 3% in the number of vessels, 8% for total
            tonnage and 5% for fleet engine power.

            In 2002 the largest segment in terms of the number of vessels was 4N1 (small
            inshore vessels) which comprised 76% of the fleet, the demersal trawl fleet of 4N4
            accounted for 13% of the vessels, beam trawlers of segment 4N3 for 1.5% and the
            pelagic trawl and purse seiners (4N2) a mere 0.6%. Ignoring the predominance by
            virtue of their sheer numbers of small vessels in 4N1, the important segments in
            terms of kW are - categories 4N4 (demersal trawlers) with 32% of the fleet’s engine
            power, the pelagic trawl/purser fleet of 4N2 with 10% and the beam trawl vessels of
            4N3 accounting for 9%.

            The decline in the UK fleet on paper does not necessarily reflect a similar decrease in
            the fishing effort that the major segments could exert. The number of boats may have
            dropped for various reasons – natural wastage, decommissioning schemes and the
            possibility for fishing licences to be aggregated to new purchases – but vessels in the
            remaining fleet are likely to be the most efficient at catching fish.

     1.2.   Fishing opportunities

            Most fishing opportunities available to the UK fleet lie within EU waters, but it has
            also benefited from agreements concluded by the Commission with Third Countries,
            notably Norway and the Faeroe Islands. Both the pelagic and demersal fleets operate
            extensively throughout the northern Atlantic. UK catchers have access to significant
            quantities of the available EU TAC’s for cod, haddock, nephrops, saithe, whiting,
            hake, sole, anglerfish, plaice, lemon sole, sandeel, mackerel, horse mackerel herring
            and blue whiting in the various divisions of ICES areas I to VIII. Additionally, the
            UK had limited quotas of Greenland halibut and redfish in Greenland, and redfish in
            Icelandic waters.

            In 2001 the initial global quota for the UK fleet was 833,410 tonnes. The most
            important pelagic species were mackerel (265,389 tonnes), herring (127,463 tonnes),
            blue whiting (46,420 tonnes), horse mackerel (27,810 tonnes) and sandeel (20,000
            tonnes). The uptake on these pelagic quotas was on average 72%. The main
            commercial demersal species were haddock (106,639 tonnes), cod (52,878 tonnes),
            anglerfish (17,566 tonnes), nephrops (30,680 tonnes), whiting (32,035 tonnes), sole
            (2,750 tonnes), plaice (25,640 tonnes), hake (2,660 tonnes) and saithe (18,831
            tonnes). The UK caught 80% of these allocated quotas.

            The above figures accounted for 93% of the total national TAC.

            The UK authorities manage their available fishing opportunities in two ways – by the
            national licensing scheme, which in turn controlled quota uptake, and by the
            monitoring of fishing effort.

            In regard to quota, the various fisheries departments have sought to devolve the day
            to day management of fishing opportunities to the industry itself by the division of
            the available fish amongst the various Producer Organisations (POs). For a full
            explanation see section 1.3. below. The UK operates a Western Waters effort regime,
            with the various segments being ‘capped’. Additionally, effort restrictions are also



EN                                               210                                                  EN
             applied to the activities of the pelagic, demersal, beam trawl, seines and nephrops
             segments in line with the requirements of MAGP IV. In principle the POs are
             required to monitor effort uptake but the UK fisheries departments do this on their
             behalf. The management of fishing effort is centralised in London and available
             effort is allocated en bloc to the various POs based on their member’s track records.

             In the UK approximately 95% of the national quota80 is allocated to the POs which
             have a total membership of about 1,380 vessels. The remainder of the fleet and
             vessels less than 10 metres are subject to catch restrictions decided by the Fisheries
             Departments.

             The main tool in the UK for controlling the activities of the fishing fleet is the
             restrictive licensing scheme. Because no new licences are issued, the fleet is in effect
             ‘ring fenced’ i.e. no new capacity can enter the fleet. All commercially registered
             fishing vessels must hold a fishing licence to operate and licences fall into three
             categories – Type A (vessel may fish for all species), Type B (vessel may fish for all
             species except ‘pressure stocks’) and Type C (vessel may fish for stocks for which
             no TAC has been set, plus nephrops in the North Sea). There are various sub-
             divisions within these main licence types, and there is a system of capacity penalties
             and constraints to control and contain licence transfer between types.

     1.3.    National systems for management of fleets and fishing opportunities

             The United Kingdom has a well established, but essentially decentralised, control
             system with substantial enforcement resources. Despite the existence of different
             fisheries administrations in the devolved government institutions of the UK (see 2.1.
             below for a detailed picture), the Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs
             (Defra) remains the ‘lead’ organisation for policy matters concerning the
             management of fleets and fishing opportunities. The Department represents the UK
             at the Council of Ministers and in dealings with the EC in regard to all aspects of the
             CFP. Enforcement in England and Wales is mainly carried out by the Sea Fisheries
             Inspectorate (SFI), in Scotland by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA)
             and in Northern Ireland by the Fisheries Inspectorate of the Department of
             Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Fisheries departments in the Isle of
             Man, Jersey and Guernsey are responsible for administering fishing activity in their
             respective areas.

             Whilst Fisheries Departments assume the main tasks of policy, control and
             enforcement, UK POs have taken on the major task of management of the fishing
             opportunities available to the fleet. This responsibility was delegated from the UK
             fisheries departments in the mid 1980s for the North Sea and west of Scotland
             fisheries, and in the early 1990s for ICES area VII fisheries. POs utilise in excess of
             95% of the annual quotas, the remainder being allocated to non-PO members. In the
             UK there are 20 recognised POs.

             The fishing vessel register is compiled from information provided by the Registry of
             Ships and Seamen (RSS), which is a part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
             (MCA). The actual details on the register are supplied by vessel owners, ship


     80
            Source - Fisheries Enforcement in England, National Audit Office Report, April 2003



EN                                                     211                                              EN
              builders, marine surveyors, marine classification societies and other approved
              organisations. The fleet register is the source of all technical data needed for
              licensing the UK fishing fleet. Corresponding information is supplied for vessels
              registered in the Isle of Man and Channel Islands by the locally based competent
              authorities.

              Catch registration in the UK is a joint effort between the various fisheries
              departments of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Data from EC
              logbooks, landing declarations and sales-notes are recorded in the numerous
              administrative ports and transmitted on-line to the central databases of the different
              administrations. Nearly all data is introduced into the computer system within four or
              five days after the sale of catches. All the data (vessel characteristics, gear type,
              fishing time, etc) are entered into the system and the effort subsequently calculated.

              In addition to the activities of the main government fisheries departments, there is
              limited control in coastal waters by the inspection services of the Sea Fisheries
              Committees (SFCs) and Environment Agency which regulate local sea fisheries
              around the coasts of England and Wales out to a limit of 6 miles. SFC’s are financed
              by precept from the various coastal local authorities and are empowered to make
              bylaws for the management and conservation of fisheries within their districts.

     1.4.     Activities to be controlled

     1.4.1.   Waters under UK sovereignty and jurisdiction.

              The United Kingdom has an EEZ of approximately 850,000 km² and a coastline of
              some 16,000 km. British Fishery Limits were defined in The Fishery Limits Act
              1976 and were re-defined following devolution by The Fishery Limits Order 1997
              and The Fishery Limits Order of 1999. UK waters lay wholly within ICES areas II,
              IV, V, VI and VII. As detailed in 1.1 above, there is a large fleet to be controlled –
              7,546 vessels in 2002.

              The UK fleet is operational throughout BFL’s with many seasonal fisheries in certain
              waters. Demersal fishing is widespread and pelagic species are taken in traditional
              areas at specific times of the year. The huge inshore fleet of 6,000 plus vessels tends
              to operate on a more localised basis and on the whole targets assorted shellfish
              species.

              Other Member States’ vessels operate extensively throughout UK waters. In the
              North Sea these are mainly French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish vessels with the
              ocassional appearance of Norwegian trawlers. In the south and west French, Belgian,
              Danish, Irish and Spanish vessels are predominant. There is intensive activity by
              French vessels to the north west of Scotland which target deep water species and
              operate almost exclusively out of Scottish ports.

     1.4.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country Waters.

              British Fishery Limits border the EEZ of 6 other Member States – Ireland, France,
              Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and also waters of Norway and the
              Faeroe Islands.




EN                                                 212                                                  EN
              There is particular activity by UK vessels in the bordering EEZ of all MS of the
              North Sea. Fishing activities are also carried out in the French and Irish waters of
              ICES area VII. UK vessels – particularly Scots – frequently operate in international
              waters (especially in the NEAFC area) and in third country waters – Norwegian and
              Faeroese – during the blue whiting and herring campaigns.

     1.4.3.   Landings and imports

              There are over 450 separate landing locations in the United Kingdom. In order to
              increase the effectiveness of controls, a prior notification and designated ports
              system was introduced in 1999 for whitefish and shellfish landings made by vessels
              over 20 metres. This scheme was implemented as a fishing licence condition.
              Regionally there are 19 designated ports in Scotland, 16 in England and Wales and 4
              in Northern Ireland. A separate designated ports system also operates for pelagic
              landings with 16 designated ports in England, Wales and the Isle of Man, 8 in
              Scotland and 4 in Northern Ireland. Pelagic vessels are only allowed to land at
              designated ports. Demersal discharges in the designated ports can only take place
              within specified times, and four hours notice is needed and authorisation must be
              granted if vessels wish to land outside these times or at non designated ports.

              Provisional data indicate that, in 2002, the UK fleet landed 684,850 tonnes of sea fish
              (pelagic 304,700 tonnes, demersal 245,100 tonnes and shellfish 135,050 tonnes) with
              a total value of € 768.8 million. Landings by UK vessels into the UK itself amounted
              to 465,764 tonnes with a value of some € 583.6 million. In 2002 direct landings into
              the UK by fishing vessels from other Member States and Third countries amounted
              to 72,158 tonnes, with an associated value of € 106.5 million.

              In some fisheries, landings by UK vessels into foreign ports are of absolute
              importance – for example the Scottish Fishermen’s PO, the largest in the UK, has
              access to over 200,000 tonnes of fish of which 70% is landed in Norway. Landings
              by UK vessels into other countries in 2002 amounted to 219,085 tonnes with a value
              of € 185.3 million. These landings were made into Norwegian, Faeroese, Dutch,
              Danish, French, Irish and Spanish ports.

              Foreign vessels using UK ports are mostly French, Belgian, Spanish, Irish and
              Faeroese. The catches discharged are almost exclusively overlanded to continental
              auction centres – the exception being landings by Irish pelagic vessels and some
              Faeroese vessels landing in Scottish ports. In the reference period some 202,600
              tonnes, valued at € 287.5 million, were landed by other than UK vessels.

              The only industrial fish meal plants in the UK are found in Lerwick and Aberdeen,
              where blue whiting and sandeel are processed during the seasonal fisheries. During
              the period 2000 to 2002 some 53,000 tonnes of fish were reduced for industrial
              purposes.

              Because of the inability of the national fleet to meet domestic demand, the UK
              processing industry relies greatly on imports of the base product from other MS and
              Third countries. Imports of fish into the UK increased from 442,000 tonnes in 1993
              to just over 625,000 tonnes in 2001 with a value of € 2,033 million. To bolster
              demand, in 2001 the UK imported 17,000 tonnes of fresh and chilled cod, 82,000
              tonnes of cod fillets and a further 20,000 tonnes of frozen cod. Most imported fish



EN                                                 213                                                  EN
               arrives in the UK via ports in the north east of England and the east coast of
               Scotland.

     1.4.4.    Marketing, processing and transport

               There are 35 major auction centres in the ports of the UK. Traditionally the main
               processors are based in, or close to, these selling points. A substantial processing
               industry of around 541 enterprises exists, employing some 22,253 people81. Many of
               the species caught by UK vessels find a better market on the continent and these
               species are usually exported or landed directly abroad.

               By far the dominant fisheries region of the UK, in terms of tonnage and value, is
               Scotland. This is largely due to the bulk volume of pelagic landings (mainly
               mackerel and herring) and the discharge of catches from the deepwater fishery to the
               west of Scotland. The most important English ports are those in the south west of
               England, where vessels land less tonnage but highly priced ‘prime’ species such as
               anglerfish, sole and hake. In the case of Milford Haven in Wales, 95% of demersal
               landings are made by either UK ‘flagged’, French, Spanish or Belgian vessels.

               There is a well established transport infrastructure for the movement of fishery
               products in the UK. Vessels often consign fish from more remote ports or from ports
               with smaller markets, to the larger auction centres to take advantage of the buyers
               traditionally based in these. An example of this is Grimsby which has a small locally
               based fleet but still maintains a large daily auction, drawing fish from the east and
               west coasts of England and Scotland. In the UK there is no obligation for catches to
               be sold at auction, so many transports of fish will go direct to the processors
               premises.

               As explained in 1.4.3. above, during the period in question in excess of 200,000
               tonnes were landed by non-UK vessels. By far the majority of this product was
               transported by lorry to continental markets in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and
               Spain. Given the quantity of transported fish moving through the UK, the verification
               of transport documentation is an important area for control activity and the
               competent authorities to undertake these checks are the fishery inspectors of SFPA,
               SFI and DARD.

               In regard to controls in connection with EC marketing Regulations, several
               authorities are involved. The SFI, SFPA and DARD undertake checks on common
               marketing standards and market support schemes, Customs and Excise undertakes
               checks on imports from Third countries (but in practice these are mostly for fiscal
               rather than conservation purposes). The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) acts in
               regard to intervention payments. Locally based Environmental Health officers are
               involved in the verification of fish for general hygiene and food safety purposes. The
               POs usually have appointed agents at each auction whose task it is to see to it that
               fish is classified correctly and to act correspondingly if intervention measures are
               required.




     81
              Source – UK Seafood Industry Annual Statistics 2001.



EN                                                       214                                            EN
            In the period 2000 – 2002 there were 10,997 withdrawal claims submitted to the
            RPA who in turn made 184 visits to the POs to verify that intervention was
            applicable.


     2.     LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

     2.1.   Legislation and administration

            The primary instruments of fisheries law in the United Kingdom are the Sea Fish
            (Conservation) Act 1967, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 and the Fisheries Act 1981, all
            of which have been variously amended since their introduction. These Acts generally
            apply in the whole of the United Kingdom, with amendments and modifications
            being made in respect of their application to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
            following devolution in 1999.

            The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act provides Ministers with powers to regulate fishing
            activity, including the licensing of fishing vessels registered in the UK. Secondary
            legislation (Orders) are introduced to place specific restrictions on fishing in order to
            conserve marine resources. The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control
            Measures) Order 2000, made under the Fisheries Act 1981 replaced earlier orders
            and contains provisions concerning offences, penalties and the recovery of fines for
            breaches of the Control Regulation. Parallel orders are in force in Wales, Scotland
            and Northern Ireland.

            In the United Kingdom, the responsibility for fisheries monitoring and enforcement
            is shared between the following authorities:

            •     The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and its Sea
                  Fisheries Inspectorate (SFI) covering England.

            •     The National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department (NAWAD)
                  covering Wales, which uses Defra as its agent for most fisheries control
                  activity.

            •     The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD)
                  and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) covering Scotland.

            •     The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and its
                  Fisheries Inspectorate, covering Northern Ireland.

            These are collectively known as the ‘Fisheries Departments of the UK’. Although
            responsibility for fisheries matters has been devolved, the various Departments have
            undertaken to maintain an integrated approach to the management of the UK fleet
            and its fishing opportunities.

            The Royal Navy’s Fisheries Protection Squadron, under the direction of Defra carries
            out monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activity within British Fishery
            Limits adjacent to England and Wales. That function is carried out by the SFPA's
            Fishery Protection Vessels in respect of limits adjacent to Scotland. DARD covers
            territorial waters (out to 12 miles) adjacent to Northern Ireland, with the assistance of



EN                                               215                                                    EN
     the Royal Navy. Inspections are undertaken on UK vessels which fish in or transit
     through international waters. Aerial surveillance within English and Welsh BFLs is
     undertaken by a private company (Directflight Ltd) which is contracted to Defra and
     surveillance activity is directed from the SFI’s operational centre in London. Aerial
     surveillance in Scotland is directed by SFPA HQ Operations in Edinburgh. The
     SFPA own two aircraft operated under contract to a private company (Highland
     Airways) and operate out of various Scottish airfields depending on tasking
     requirements.

     Fishery inspectors (British Sea Fishery Officers – BSFOs) are based in all principal
     fishing ports, and they act under the direction of central administrative and
     operational units located in London, Edinburgh and Belfast (as appropriate).

     In Wales and England, inshore fisheries out to the 6 mile limit are also regulated by
     local SFCs, which are funded by precept from the local authorities. The local
     authorities have Statutory responsibilities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of
     1966 and 12 such Fishery Committees exist. They assist Defra and NAWAD with
     the enforcement of some technical conservation measures in inshore waters (out to 6
     mile) but for the most part focus on local issues in their respective areas. Funding for
     the SFC’s was in the region of € 6.25 million per year. It should be noted that several
     SFC’s are facing fiscal difficulties with financial contributions being reduced by the
     various local authorities. The Environment Agency also has inspection and control
     responsibilities within certain areas out to the 6 mile zone in England and Wales, but
     only in regard to catches of eel, salmon and sea trout.

     Responsibility for the vessel licensing and structural controls is shared between the
     Fisheries Departments of the UK, with Defra acting as the agent for NAWAD. The
     central register of UK fishing vessels is compiled and maintained by RSS (see 1.3.
     above) who supplies all details to Defra. The measurement of fishing vessels is
     undertaken by qualified surveyors who are either officers of the MCA or duly
     authorised persons. In Scotland, staff of the SFPA also assists with the measurement
     of small vessels.

     The control of marketing standards requires collaboration between a range of other
     authorities and the relevant responsible Fisheries Department. The RPA deals with
     all financial compensation for fish withdrawn from the market. In the auctions
     Environmental Health Officers enforce general hygiene and food safety regulations
     on fisheries products placed for human consumption. Officials of the Customs
     service also undertake checks at the borders concerning imports of fish from other
     MS and Third countries.

     The autonomous Fisheries Departments of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are
     responsible for administering and controlling fishing activity within their respective
     12 mile limits.

     POs with their responsibilities for the management of allocated quotas are expected
     to impose disciplinary action on members who may violate internal rules on such
     things as catch limits. In Scotland the SEERAD has made moves towards imposing
     quota penalties on POs where there is suspicion that quantities are mis-declared by
     its members.




EN                                        216                                                   EN
     2.2.   Powers of control

            Fisheries inspectors, officially known as British Sea Fishery Officers (BSFOs), are
            appointed by, and established under, Section 7 of the Sea Fisheries Act of 1968.
            They include members of the Fisheries Inspectorates in England, Wales, Scotland
            and Northern Ireland. At sea Commissioned Officers of any Royal Naval Fishery
            Protection Vessel (FPV), the officers of SFPA Fishery Protection Vessels holding
            rank of Commander, First or Second Officer, and other personnel specifically
            appointed by Ministers assume the powers of a BSFO. Pilots and observers flying on
            fisheries patrols are also designated as inspectors.

            All BSFOs are warranted in much the same way as the police and customs officers,
            however their powers are specifically related to fishery enforcement. In this sphere of
            work they actually have, in some cases, more power than the police, in particular
            regarding the boarding of vessels and entering premises where fishing and fisheries
            related activity takes place. General powers of control relate to the boarding,
            inspection and searching of fishing vessels, detention of vessels, entry into and
            search of premises, seizure of fish and fishing gear both at sea and ashore, seizing
            and retaining documents and electronic data and the power to call on the Master of a
            vessel to assist as required.

            The full range of powers is not always necessarily available to all BSFOs. For
            instance SFC officers have limited powers and are generally only warranted to
            undertake technical enforcement, i.e. measure nets, check fish sizes. They do not
            have any interest in quotas, EC logbooks or vessel licences. Inspectors of the
            Environment Agency only have an interest in technical controls concerning eels,
            salmon and sea trout.

            The main tasks of control by the various authorities are:

            Ashore – to collect and cross-check declared data on catch area and landings on all
            control documentation; ensure compliance with vessel registration, licensing and
            technical measures (minimum sizes, by-catches etc); verify compliance with EC
            marketing Regulations; undertake investigations of infringements and take
            appropriate action.

            In the air – in liaison with the UK FPVs, to undertake surveillance of BFLs and
            sometimes beyond; provide sightings information for use by the FPVs (such data are
            subsequently cross-checked against EC logbooks), and to supply information of
            activity in specified areas where certain fishing restrictions may apply, as well as
            provide an overall picture of fishing activity in BFLs.

            At sea – to patrol the waters within BFLs and sometimes beyond; to monitor the 6
            and 12 mile fishery limits in regard to access for foreign vessels; to board vessels to
            check compliance with technical measures and verify information recorded in EC
            logbooks; to take appropriate action when infringements are discovered, which may
            involve the detention of the fishing vessel to a UK port.




EN                                               217                                                  EN
     2.3.   Follow up of infringements

            In the UK breaches of fisheries legislation are treated as criminal offences and are
            therefore dealt with under criminal law. There is no formal system of administrative
            sanctions in operation. All BSFOs receive legal training to ensure that adequate
            evidence is gathered and that their behaviour when undertaking criminal
            investigations is within prescribed guidelines.

            Although some offences are defined directly by the Parliamentary Acts on fisheries,
            the vast majority of infringements of fisheries rules (of the CFP) are detailed in
            secondary legislation. The two most important of these orders are the Sea Fishing
            (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) Order and the Sea Fishing
            (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order from 2000. For instance, the
            latter Order provides that those who are in contravention of or fail to comply with a
            measure specified in the Schedule to the Order shall be guilty of an offence. The
            Schedule in this case refers directly to provisions in the Council Regulation No.
            2847/93. It also specifies the persons liable in relation to each offence. In addition to
            the master of a vessel, the owner of the vessel or any charterer may also be held
            liable. However, in the case of foreign vessels, only the master can be held liable,
            unless the company owning the boat is under British jurisdiction.

            Infringements detected can be dealt with in a number of ways – verbal admonition,
            official written warning or via criminal prosecution. Senior inspectors based in the
            coastal offices have discretion (subject to certain conditions) on the use of verbal and
            written warnings for what are seen as minor infringements, although verbal warnings
            are no longer used in Scotland. All infringements detected at sea are reported to the
            respective HQ operational units for decisions on what action is to be taken.

            Where more serious infringements are detected ashore in England or Wales, local
            inspectors will investigate and all relevant documents and written evidence are
            forwarded to SFI headquarters where a ‘prosecution file’ is prepared. The case is
            then reviewed and a decision taken by Defra’s Legal Department on how to proceed.
            Defra has occasionally utilised its own Investigation Branch, when sophisticated
            methods have been used to conceal illegal activities or for large scale investigations
            involving catchers, vessel owners and the auction authorities.

            If it is decided to prosecute then the case is taken to a Magistrates Court with Defra
            normally engaging a locally based solicitor to undertake the prosecution on its
            behalf. Defendants have the option to seek trial in the Crown Courts, which generally
            means a trial by jury. The Magistrates Court may also choose to refer the case to a
            Crown Court on its own initiative, because of the complexity of the case or to avoid
            the limits imposed on a Magistrates Court as regards the maximum fine.

            In Scotland, the coastal SFPA inspectors also forward documentary evidence of
            infringements to their HQ. Here the decision is taken whether a case should be
            referred to the independent Procurator Fiscal Service. Any decision thereafter to
            proceed to prosecution through the criminal courts (the Sheriff Court) is taken by
            individual Procurators Fiscal. The rules of evidence, in particular the requirements of
            corroboration, are more stringent in Scottish law than those which apply in the rest of
            the UK, and the SFPA’s inspection and investigation procedures are geared to




EN                                               218                                                    EN
            ensuring that, where necessary, corroborated evidence is obtained. Special rules for
            evidence gathering also apply in Northern Ireland.

            In the UK there appears to be one obvious option for administrative sanctioning – the
            withdrawal of the fishing licence from a vessel. All fishing licences are issued on
            behalf of the Minister and only the Minister or the Law Courts have the power to
            withdraw a licence. However, in practice these powers are not used.

            At sea if a serious infringement by a foreign vessel is detected, and the SFI, DARD
            or SFPA decide that prosecution is warranted, the vessel is directed to a UK port and
            detained. There in conjunction with shore based inspectors the case is heard before a
            local court, usually within 48 hours. If an infringement is detected on a UK vessel at
            sea, it is not normally detained to port but all evidence is gathered and then
            forwarded to the SFI, DARD or SFPA for legal processing ashore.

            The maximum levels of fines are defined in the relevant acts of secondary
            legislation, e.g. the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures)
            Order 2000. In that Order, Article 4 provides that a person found guilty shall be
            liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the amounts specified in the
            attached Schedule. In the Schedule, and depending on the offence, the maximum
            fines are indicated as the Statutory Maximum, which at present is £ 5,000 (€ 7,100)
            for infringements of the Technical Regulation, or, for infringements of the Control
            Regulation, £ 50,000 (€ 71,000).

            However, these are the limits for a summary conviction. For conviction on
            indictment, Article 4 simply states that the guilty person should be liable to a fine.
            This means, as regards England, that if the Magistrates Court, which can only decide
            on summary conviction, refers the case to the Crown Court, which has jurisdiction to
            try offences on indictment. That court is not bound by the limitations imposed by the
            Schedule. The same would in principle apply also to Scotland, where the Sheriff
            Court can commit the case to the High Court for a trial on indictment. However,
            fisheries cases in Scotland are, in practice, exclusively heard by the Sheriff Courts.

            The level of the fines is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court, which will take
            into account various factors, including the means of the defendant, when setting the
            amount to be paid. Repeat offences will significantly affect the level of fines. The
            perceived economic benefit of the infraction is also taken into account. If more than
            one offence is detected, the fines can be aggregated.

            The SFCs and Environment Agencies can also take recourse to the courts for what
            they view as serious infringements of their local rules and regulations. They also
            have a system of official warnings in the form of verbal and written admonitions.


     3.     MEANS OF CONTROL

     3.1.   Budget resources

            The total budget allocated by the Fisheries Departments in the UK for fisheries
            enforcement in the period 2000 – 2002 amounted to € 104.7 million. Control activity
            ashore, at sea and in the air was broken down as follows:



EN                                               219                                                    EN
                                            2000              2001              2002

             Enforcement ashore            € 7.7 m            €9m              € 9.9 m

             Enforcement at sea            € 20 m            € 20 m            € 18 m

             Aerial enforcement            € 7.4 m           € 7.2 m           € 5.5 m

                          Total           € 35.1 m          € 36.2 m            € 33.4



            Additionally, some € 937,000 was spent on development and technical support for
            the installation of the UK satellite monitoring systems.

     3.2.   Human resources

            In 2002 there were a total of 157 permanent fishery inspectors employed by the
            Fisheries Departments – this figure excluded warranted officers aboard Fishery
            Patrol Vessels (FPVs) and the pilots/observers of patrol aircraft. Shore based
            inspectors also periodically undertake inspection activity at sea.

            The staffing infrastructure is similar in each of the three Fisheries Departments. The
            headquarters of the SFI, SFPA and DARD are based in London, Edinburgh and
            Belfast respectively. The various regions of each country are then split into larger
            districts. All three Inspection services employ administrative staff in supporting
            roles. Defra and the SFPA have dedicated operations staff to oversee daily
            surveillance activity. DEFRA, the SFPA and DARD operate a rota system whereby
            senior ‘duty’ officers are ‘on call’ 24 hours a day to offer support to the FPVs and
            BSFOs operating on the ground.

            Inspectors appointed by the UK authorities are required to demonstrate a background
            in fisheries and have either formal education in related topics or practical fisheries
            experience. Each inspector participates in an intensive training course, lasting several
            weeks, before taking up his or her appointment. After that, training continues on the
            job, with new recruits initially operating under the responsibility of more
            experienced colleagues.

     3.3.   Other resources

            In the UK there are two maritime services which provide Fishery Patrol Vessels
            (FPVs) for surface patrol – the Royal Navy Fisheries Protection Squadron acts on
            behalf of Defra and DARD and the SFPA operates its own vessels. These FPVs
            patrol throughout BFLs and occasionally beyond if required. The SFCs and EA
            operating in England and Wales also have small vessels to patrol within their
            allocated areas. The Channel Islands and Isle of Man authorities also possess their
            own patrol vessels.

            The Royal Navy’s Fisheries Protection Squadron comprises 10 FPVs of the ‘Hunt’
            and ‘Island’ class which can remain at sea for up to 18 days. SFPA operates 4 vessels
            – 3 offshore and 1 inshore. DARD operates 2 inshore vessels.



EN                                               220                                                   EN
            For aerial surveillance within BFLs, Defra uses a private company (Directflight Ltd)
            which supplies and operates 2 aircraft for the task. The SFPA owns 2 aircraft which
            are operated under contract by Directflight Ltd. Aerial patrols are also made in the
            Norwegian sector of ICES IVa (with the agreement of Norway) and into
            international waters of the south west approaches to observe UK vessels transiting to
            Spain to land.

     3.4.   Financial aid programme

            For the period 2000 – 2002 the UK received the following Community financial
            contribution for fisheries control (in €):

                       2000                 2001                 2002

                   5.29 million         2.99 million         8.61 million

            The majority of Community funding was used for the upgrade and operation of
            various surveillance hardware and the development of VMS and Fishery Monitoring
            Centres (FMCs). Investments by the SFCs were principally made for the purchase
            and/or modernisation of inshore patrol vessels and the general upgrading of existing
            equipment.


     4.     MONITORING

     4.1.   Control databases

            The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) based in
            Lowestoft maintains, on behalf of Defra, a series of databases containing catch
            registration statistics and the vessel details and licensing information of the UK fleet.
            In Scotland the FIN (Fisheries Information Network) system is used. There is a link
            between the mainframes in Edinburgh and CEFAS and information is exchanged
            daily. DARD downloads information electronically to the CEFAS mainframe. The
            RSS is also linked electronically to the CEFAS vessel register.

            In port offices, catch and landing data are collected and subsequently manually cross
            checked against sightings, VMS and other surveillance information. The time delay
            between information input in the ports and it appearing in the main databases is
            therefore very short. The Defra Statistics Unit has access to the CEFAS database and
            integrates the data from Scotland and Northern Ireland to compile monthly and
            annual catch statistics. The data is also supplied to the FIDES 2 system of DG-Fish
            in the Commission.

            Defra also operates a national fisheries surveillance database with inspection and
            surveillance information being input electronically from port offices, FPVs and
            aircraft. When patrol vessels are at sea a data compression system known as
            MARINET is used to link them with the operational centres in London and
            Edinburgh. By means of this network, daily reports of sightings and boarding
            information can be delivered via satellite communications.




EN                                                 221                                                  EN
     4.2.   VMS

            In line with the provisions of the Control Regulation the UK authorities established a
            satellite based monitoring system to monitor the position of Community fishing
            vessels over 24 metres overall length. FMCs were set up in London (Defra),
            Edinburgh (SFPA) and Belfast (DARD). In total 387 vessels have been equipped
            with satellite terminals and are providing position reports. Operational links are
            established with 8 Member States, as well as Norway, the Faeroe Islands, Greenland
            and the NEAFC secretariat.

            In accordance with Community regulations failure of VMS equipment on board UK
            vessels requires the owner to carry out repairs within a 30 day period, after which the
            vessel is not permitted to go to sea. In the interim period the vessels must submit
            manual position reports.


     5.     INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

     5.1.   Waters under UK sovereignty or jurisdiction

            British waters are fished intensively by vessels from many Member States and
            occasionally those of third countries. There is a high level of collaboration between
            the various services involved in maritime surveillance. The aircraft and FPVs
            concentrate their efforts on those areas where fishing activity is expected to be most
            intensive or where there is a distinct prospect that there is non-compliance with the
            rules in force.

            During the period 2000 - 2002 priority was given to surveillance of the general
            fishing zone, the national 6 and 12 mile limits in regard to access and technical
            measures and enforcement in the designated ‘conservation boxes’ for cod in the
            North Sea and Area VII. Some 8,222 patrol days were spent at sea by the vessels of
            the SFPA and Royal Navy, and during this time a total of 9,977 vessels were
            inspected. The competent authorities of the Channel Islands and, the Isle of Man,
            SFCs and EA act completely autonomously and no details were provided on the level
            of their control activity. With the consent of the competent authorities, these areas
            are however also covered by the relevant UK enforcement authorities.

            Aerial surveillance in the same period comprises a total duration of 8,937 flying
            hours, the aircraft reporting 80,318 sightings.

     5.2.   Other Community, International and Third Country waters

            Aerial patrols are undertaken in the Norwegian sector of ICES IVa (with the
            agreement of Norway) and into international waters of the south west approaches to
            observe UK vessels transiting to Spain.

            Vessels of the Royal Naval Fishery Protection Squadron operate in international
            waters, particularly to monitor UK participation in the albacore tuna campaigns in
            the Atlantic and to board UK vessels transiting to Spain. The SFPA provides an FPV
            to honour the UK’s obligation to the Commission in the patrol of NEAFC waters.




EN                                               222                                                  EN
             In co-operation with other MS a total of 14 joint surveillance operations were made.
             Additionally, the SFPA has agreed a protocol on the exchange of inspection
             personnel with the Norwegian authorities.

             In regard to the provision of information about UK fishing activity in waters outside
             the British EEZ there is an exchange of VMS data with 8 other MS and also the
             Faeroese, Norwegian and Greenland authorities.

     5.3.    Landings

             In the reference period a total of 155,879 inspections were made on vessels in ports
             or of catches discharged. To put this figure in perspective it is estimated that there
             was a 42%82 chance of a vessel being physically monitored during or after landing.
             There was also a probability that for 88%83 of landings the EC logsheets and/or
             landing declarations would be cross-checked against other surveillance data.

             UK authorities state that the return rate of EC Logbooks and landing declarations
             exceeds 95%. Catch data and information available from first sales is entered into the
             computerised systems in port offices. Staff in the offices manually cross-check this
             documentation and also compare the figures with the results of landing inspections.
             The number of EC logbooks and landing declaration returned that are subsequently
             cross-checked against other surveillance data (for example airborne sightings) varies
             between the Inspectorates, but in 2001 the overall rate for the UK was 85%.

             There is no obligation for catches to be sold through the auctions, which does present
             a number of problems in obtaining accurate sales-note data. Several large scale
             investigations in recent years have concentrated on the collusion between catchers,
             auction authorities and buyers in the provision of false sales-note information.
             Despite having the powers to do so, the UK inspection services do not undertake
             100% checks of the records of vessel agents, buyers and processors but rather adopt a
             risk-based approach to inspection.

             A system of prior notification of landing and designated ports has been in operation
             since 1999 for vessels with a length of 20 metres or more which land white-fish and
             shellfish into UK ports. Similar restrictions have been in force for pelagic landings
             since the 1970s. These measures were designed to assist inspectors in detecting and
             preventing illegal landings of fish. The designated ports scheme requires 24 hour
             manning in some of the main harbours. Weekend cover is also provided where
             necessary, and teams of mobile inspectors are deployed across the UK. Extra human
             resources are dedicated to certain ports, e.g. when pelagic landings are at their height.

             Some port offices utilise live VMS information in order to anticipate vessels heading
             for certain ports and plan their inspection presence accordingly.

     5.4.    Marketing and transport

             The inspectors with powers to make day to day controls for marketing and transport
             are the BSFOs of the SFPA, SFI and DARD. As explained in 1.4.4. above, Customs


     82
            Source – UK annual reports 2000, 2001 and 2002
     83
            Source – UK annual reports 2000, 2001 and 2002



EN                                                    223                                                EN
            and Excise (in respect of imports), the RPA (in respect of intervention measures) and
            the locally based environmental health officers (in respect of hygiene and food
            safety) are also involved with marketing controls on fisheries products.

            Nearly all of the classification labelling of fish landed is made by POs or the selling
            agents themselves. BSFOs then check to ensure that the classification is correct. In
            the reference period human resources equating to 16.5 man years were devoted to the
            monitoring and control of marketing standards, and an additional 5.7 man years was
            spent on verifying price controls.

            The RPA has a programme of regular visits to the POs to undertake controls on
            market support documentation. Verification reports are drawn up on the basis of
            these visits.

            There is no official target of checks for transport documentation, but random checks
            are performed to ensure that appropriate documentation is being carried by vehicles.
            In Scotland there is the added complication where discharges of pelagic fish are
            made directly into ‘tanker’ lorries used to transport fish direct from the vessel to the
            processors. For control purposes the SFPA insists that each ‘tanker’ is calibrated in
            order to calculate the quantity of fish transported. In the reference period some 4,234
            vehicle inspections took place.

            During the reference period the UK reported no serious infringements concerning the
            stocking, processing, placing for sale and transport of fishery products which did not
            meet EC marketing standards.

     5.5.   Information about inspection activities

            According to the Annual Control Reports for 2000 to 2002 as submitted to the
            Commission, surveillance and inspection activities were carried out mainly by the
            competent authorities of Defra, the SFPA and DARD as outlined in section 2 above.

            During the reference period the maritime inspection services of the UK Fisheries
            Departments spent a total of 8,222 days at sea. The FPVs carried out 3,818
            inspections at sea in 2000, 3,709 in 2001 and 2,450 in 2002. Additionally 8,937
            hours were flown by surveillance aircraft. In the ports a total of 155,879 controls
            were made on vessels and landings. There are no specific data on how many
            infringements were detected at sea and ashore, but the UK authorities reported that
            between 2000 and 2002 some 274 “serious infringements” were detected and
            subsequently sanctioned.

            No details have been provided to show what inspection activity was carried out by
            the various Sea Fishery Committees, the Environment Agency or the Fisheries
            Departments of the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey.

     5.6.   Enforcement

            According to information received from the national authorities in accordance with
            Council Regulations the UK reported 274 serious infringements in the reference
            period of 2000 - 2002.




EN                                               224                                                   EN
            Specifically in 2002 the UK authorities reported 125 serious infringements for
            proceedings initiated in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and completed in 2002. These cases
            involved 9 types of illegal activity. The majority of cases (89) concerned the
            falsification of data required in control documents (E1). In 2002 criminal
            proceedings were initiated in 113 cases. Penalties were imposed in all reported cases.
            The average fine was € 8,433 and ranged from € 1,999 for using prohibited fishing
            methods (D2) to € 31,980 for tampering with the VMS (E2). No seizure or licence
            withdrawals were reported.

            The time that proceedings take from detection to actual prosecution can vary and the
            UK authorities acknowledged that the legal process through the criminal system can
            take a long time. The investigative process can also take a long time especially in
            very complex cases when sophisticated methods have been used to conceal illegal
            activity over a lengthy period and where more than one vessel or businesses may
            have been involved in an investigation.

            The POs have an obligation to enforce disciplinary measures on members who break
            internal rules. However, the UK Fisheries Departments do not have any information
            on what sanctions would have been applied had this happened.


     6.     CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

     6.1.   Co-operation at national level

            Co-operation is exercised at a number of levels between Defra, SFPA and DARD,
            who organise regular seminars and meetings to co-ordinate and consolidate control
            management strategies. Joint operations and the exchange of enforcement and
            surveillance information in relation to cross border activities are frequently initiated.
            A regular data flow takes place between the SFPA offices in Edinburgh and both
            Defra and CEFAS.

            With Defra relying on the use of outside services for surveillance at sea, the SFI has
            to liaise very closely with the Royal Naval Service based in Portsmouth and
            Directflight Ltd in Exeter.

            Regular working contacts also exist between the Fisheries Departments and other
            authorities dealing with marine-related matters, e.g. Customs and Excise, the MCA,
            RSS, Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency.

            In addition to co-operation at the enforcement level UK authorities work closely with
            those POs which have acquired managerial responsibilities for quota allocations.

     6.2.   Co-operation at international level

            The UK has developed a system of co-operation with other Member States and Third
            countries on enforcement activity. Contact is maintained with the authorities in
            Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Spain and Norway. The most visible sign
            of co-operation is in the participation of joint surveillance exercises (notably the
            SHARK operations) between Defra, SFI and neighbouring North Sea Member
            States, using surveillance aircraft and FPVs. Spanish, Dutch and Norwegian
            inspectors have attended the Defra and SFI enforcement and training courses, and a


EN                                               225                                                    EN
          German inspector was welcomed aboard a Royal Navy FPV to observe enforcement
          activity at sea. In the reference period 14 joint inspections operations were made in
          collaboration with other MS. Such operations are seen as making a valuable
          contribution to the effectiveness of enforcement, especially where there are shared
          median lines.

          The SFPA has signed an agreement with the Norwegian Coastguard on arrangements
          for exchanges of personnel on each other’s patrol vessels.

          In 2000 the UK established operational protocols in relation to the supply of VMS
          data with other MS and the Norwegian Fisheries Directorate.

          In line with its obligations to NEAFC the UK (SFPA) provided FPVs for patrol
          activity in international waters. In respect of albacore tuna fishing in the Atlantic, UK
          Departments fully implemented the recommendations of ICCAT concerning the use
          of drift nets.


     7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION

          The UK has established a national control system in accordance with the
          requirements of the Control Regulation, notably in relation to Title II. This system
          provides for monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fishing activities in the ports,
          in British waters and where appropriate Third country and international waters.

          The UK has implemented measures to control the development of the structure of the
          fishing fleet principally though national arrangements for the licensing of fishing
          vessels. The activities of United Kingdom vessels are monitored (both by Defra and
          SEERAD) in relation to their MAGP IV segmentation. The level of accuracy of the
          national fleet register and information contained on fishing licences has improved.
          However, the Commission continues to have doubts about the accuracy of the fleet
          register in relation to engine power, despite the measures that the UK authorities
          have taken to ensure that engine power is correctly stated. These doubts are
          compounded by the absence of suitable mechanisms for the physical verification of
          engine power.

          The level of expertise among UK fishery inspectors is high, and the amount and
          quality of training offered both to new inspectors and on the job is clearly sufficient.
          The resources for surveillance and inspection at sea and in the air are considered to
          be adequate. However, the resources on land are stretched because of the UK’s
          extensive coastline, and the large number of landing locations poses a particular
          problem for effective control. The adoption of a designated ports and prior
          notification of landings scheme for whitefish vessels has helped address these
          problems. While acknowledging the advantages brought about by the designated port
          scheme, the Commission cannot be convinced that this alone can guarantee overall
          effectiveness. In practice the number of inspectors available is insufficient to fully
          monitor and control landings even within the designated ports and designated landing
          times. Potential weaknesses of the system also include the facts that restrictions only
          refer to vessels over 20 metres, thereby exempting a significant part of the UK fleet,
          and that there is no need to hand in logsheets prior to landing when vessels land
          outside designated hours or in non-designated ports.



EN                                             226                                                    EN
     The possibility of illegal landings of quota stocks, whether un-recorded, under-
     recorded, mis-recorded as other species, or mis-reported as being caught in other
     ICES areas, remains an issue of great concern. The quantification of such activity has
     proven impossible because of its clandestine nature.

     The Commissions main concerns on ‘black’ activity are as follows:

           •     There appears to be systematic mis-recording of catches of herring and
                 mackerel between ICES IVa and VIa, which is indicated by what seems
                 to be a practice of deliberate interference with the transmission of the
                 VMS signal. This practice also exists with catches of sole and plaice in
                 the sub-divisions of ICES area VII and IVc.

           •     Due to the lack of effective control methodology in regards to weighing
                 of catches, the declared landings of mackerel, herring, cod, haddock,
                 saithe and nephrops could be considerably under-declared. It is also
                 likely that catches will have been landed and not declared at all in the
                 absence of inspectors.

           •     In regard to British vessels landing in other MS the UK authorities accept
                 that they have limited powers to control ‘black’ landings when this
                 happens. It is likely that substantial quantities of herring and mackerel
                 have been mis-recorded when landed in Denmark and Norway, notably
                 by pelagic catchers taking full advantage of the 20% tolerance permitted
                 in the EC logbook. A similar situation exists in regards to substantial
                 quantities of the national TAC’s for hake, megrim and anglerfish landed
                 by UK vessels in Spanish ports, a considerable part being mis-recorded
                 as spurious non-TAC species.

     It is therefore likely that the final uptake of several quota species is considerably
     higher than that recorded and declared by the UK authorities.

     Sales-note information is currently provided for the majority of sales that take place
     within the UK. However, given the results of certain high profile investigations and
     subsequent successful criminal prosecutions, it is apparent that there have been cases
     of a high degree of collusion between the catchers, POs, selling agents and buyers in
     providing false sales and landings information. The UK authorities do not operate a
     systematic programme for administrative checks of the records of selling agents,
     processors and the POs.

     EC inspectors have observed examples of ‘black fish’ activity in the auctions, an
     example being cod concealed beneath a layer of ling in boxes. In Scotland, boxes for
     which there is an accepted standard weight have been overfilled by up to 15%.
     Additionally in Scotland there is no widely accepted standardised weight for bins
     containing up to 500 kg of fish where fish is landed and displayed for auction.

     Progress has been made in Scotland concerning the accepted weights of ‘tanker’
     lorries used to transport pelagic species direct from vessels to the processors. The
     calibrated weights agreed by the SFPA are however still seen as favourable to the
     industry. In the factories the systems used for assessing the weights of pelagic
     discharges, i.e. fish passing along conveyor belts, is easily manipulated. As a result a



EN                                        227                                                   EN
     great deal of SFPA manpower is spent simply physically monitoring the belt
     recording system which can be simply re-set in a few seconds if the inspector is
     absent.

     Whilst the UK annual reports state that transport documentation is regularly checked,
     EC inspectors have observed that no systematic programme is applied in the ports.
     No details are available on either the number of infringements detected concerning
     transport documentation, or if the checks concern UK or just foreign landings.

     In regard to compliance with the Community common marketing standards, the
     classification of demersal fish prior to sale on the auctions is done by length criteria
     rather than by weight. Even when length/weight equivalents have been applied,
     significant quantities (up to 40% of lots sampled by Defra) fail to be sorted and
     labelled correctly prior to sale.

     Inspection and surveillance at sea undoubtedly contribute to improved compliance
     with technical conservation measures. However, the possibility for UK vessels to
     carry onboard more than one fishing gear with different mesh sizes makes the
     effectiveness of inspection at sea very difficult, especially in the assessment of by-
     catches.

     A significant proportion of British fishing activity occurs in waters beyond the
     jurisdiction of the UK authorities, and some 20 % of the landings of all quota stocks
     are made into foreign ports. The links between the authorities and other MS need to
     be strengthened to ensure that controls are applied in a consistent and even-handed
     manner. The links with Spain are particularly weak in regard to their effectiveness
     and are seen to be mostly reactive rather than proactive. There is a notable problem
     with the absence of sales-note information being provided for the sale of fish from
     UK vessels which may have landed in or transported fish to French and Spanish
     auctions.

     The United Kingdom has made considerable progress with the implementation of
     VMS. The information obtained by VMS contributes to an improvement in the
     reliability of catch recording by area and provides for better targeting of surveillance
     activity at sea and ashore. However, the Commission is aware of instances when the
     VMS transmission has been deliberately interfered with, notably by pelagic vessels
     in Scotland and beam-trawlers in the south west, the object clearly being to
     subsequently mis-report areas of capture in the EC logbook. UK has introduced a
     number of Statutory Instruments at the beginning of 2002, with a view to suppress
     abuse and deliberate tampering with VMS equipment. The practical results of the
     new legislation are however yet to be assessed. A system of electronic verification of
     EC logsheets against VMS data should be introduced rather than the present reliance
     on manual checks. The Commission acknowledges that the UK has taken
     prosecution action in respect of vessels failing to comply with satellite monitoring
     regulations.

     The UK authorities rely on criminal rather than administrative sanctions in dealing
     with infringements. Standards of proof are exacting and only a limited number of
     infringements result in prosecutions before the Courts. The average level of fines
     imposed is high in EU terms, but this is however somewhat balanced out by the low
     number of infringements detected and effectively prosecuted. The deterrent value of



EN                                        228                                                   EN
     the sanctions imposed is therefore not evident, given the benefits to be gained by
     illegal activity when undetected. Warning letters are issued in respect of
     infringements which are not prosecuted and which are often of a minor nature. The
     Commission feels that too much use is made of such warnings, which undermines
     the efficiency and the credibility of the system. In regulating the activities of the
     fishing industry the UK should consider whether greater use might be made of
     administrative sanctions – particularly the removal or suspension of a vessel’s fishing
     licence.




EN                                        229                                                  EN

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:3/30/2013
language:Latin
pages:229
dominic.cecilia dominic.cecilia http://
About