EUROPEAN CETACEAN BYCATCH CAMPAIGN
"Man is but a strand in the complex web of life"
"Man is but a strand in the complex web of life"
Serious infringements of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2003
Questions and Answers
European Commission Fisheries and Maritime Affairs
30th May 2005
What are serious infringements to CFP rules?
Serious infringements concern types of conduct considered to be particularly detrimental to the proper application of the rules of the CFP, in particular in areas such as stock conservation, monitoring of fishing activities and marketing of fisheries products. The Council of Ministers adopted a list of 19 types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the CFP (serious infringements, hereafter). These include:
Obstructing the work of fisheries inspectors and observers;
falsifying evidence, documents or data;
unauthorized fishing, including fishing without a licence or permit;
using or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear or methods;
tampering with the satellite-based vessel monitoring system or failure to respect rules on remote transmission of data on vessel movements;
landing, storing, processing and placing on sale fishery products while not complying with the rules.
Member States are responsible for the proper enforcement of CFP measures which cover all activities related to fisheries from the net to the plate. When they detect serious infringements, they should impose penalties which are proportionate, dissuasive and effective. They are also requested to inform the Commission of the action taken in response to the detection of these infringements.
When and why was this measure set up?
The list of 19 serious infringements was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1999.
One of the main aims of this measure is to increase transparency in the enforcement of CFP rules and to encourage the adoption of adequate and dissuasive sanctions when serious infringements are detected. Member States should be encouraged, where necessary, to adapt their legislation to ensure that those sanctions have a real deterrent effect. The idea is that greater transparency, through the publication of serious infringements and their follow up will strengthen fishermen’s confidence in the fair and homogeneous application of the CFP rules across the Union, and encourage compliance.
What type of information do the reports from the Member States contain?
Member States have to submit a range of information for each serious infringement that they have detected.
type of offence and details (date, fishing zone, flag flown by the vessel concerned);
type of proceeding used (penal or administrative procedure);
date of ruling;
level of fine;
use of sanctions such as withdrawal of licence and seizure of fishing gear and catches.
The Commission uses this information to create overall statistics which are attached to its Communication.
What have the trends been so far?
Since the publication of the first report for the year 2000, the total number of serious infringements has varied considerably from one year to the other, ranging from 6,756 infringements in 2002, to 9,502 infringements in 2003 (figures for 2000 and 2001 were 7,298 and 8,139 respectively).
At first sight, the development over 2002 and 2003 seems very negative as the number of serious infringements went up by 40%. It could be that, given the disparities between the data Member States record, the trend is not as important as it appears. It may be also that the rate of detection of serious infringements is improving.
One notable progress with regard to deterrence is the fact that the average amount of fines imposed has increased from € 1,757 in 2002 to € 4,664 in 2003 (+165%). There is no doubt, however, that more needs to be done in this area as at 4/1000 of the value of landings in 2002, the level of fines remains too modest to represent a real deterrent for wrong-doers.
Has the measure achieved its objective, and if not, why not?
The data received by the Commission have a number of failings in terms of their extent, nature and timeliness. The information provided was often inaccurate as the rules were not interpreted or data presented in a uniform way by all Member States.
There is no doubt that these shortcomings make it very difficult for the Commission to compare data and draw solid conclusions. However, it is clear – as stated above – that the level of fines should generally be increased. A number of Member States have taken some encouraging steps, including the increased use of administrative sanctions such as the temporary withdrawal of fishing licences or paying greater attention to certain types of infringements such as the catch of undersized fish.
What is the Commission intending to do to improve things in this field?
The Commission will consult Member States on how to improve the collection of data. In this process, national experts will be asked to give their views on ways to improve the quality of the data used to analyse the state of play of enforcement of CFP rules throughout the EU.
The conclusions from this work should have an impact on the report to be published in 2006. Furthermore, the Commission has launched an initiative aiming to simplify the CFP rules. This exercise should make it easier for Member States to transmit data to the Commission which, again, should improve the quality of the data.
The Commission also intends to propose a catalogue of sanctions to be imposed in cases of serious infringements. The catalogue should help increase the level of sanctions and contribute to the establishment of a more level playing-field.
Other developments, such as greater dialogue between stakeholders and the Commission, and increasing participation of fishermen in the CFP process through the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), should promote a sense of ownership among the players concerned, fostering a desire to see that rules are adhered to. Common inspections by multi-national teams, once the Union’s Fisheries Control Agency becomes operational, should also strengthen the commitment of both Member States and fishermen to see that CFP rules are applied as a crucial requirement to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries.
Main points in the report
Out of the 9,502 serious infringements detected by Member States:
22% related to unauthorised fishing
17% concerned fishing without a licence
very few of the declared cases involved tampering with the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
84% of the infringement procedures concluded with the application of a penalty. While Greece and Germany sanctioned 100% of the cases detected, and Spain and the United Kingdom more than 90%, Sweden applied sanctions in only 24% of cases
There are substantial differences in the fines imposed by Member States, for example, for unauthorised fishing, Belgium imposed an average of € 375 while in the United Kingdom an average fine of € 19,255 was applied
The average fine imposed in the European Union amounted to € 4,664, ranging from € 282 in Finland to €77,922 in the United Kingdom
Overall, infringement procedures were opened in respect of about 10% of the EU fleet
The amount paid by the fisheries industry as a consequence of sanctions imposed in 2003 at € 28,7 million was roughly equal to 4/1000 of the 2002 landing value (€ 6,219 million)
See also:
The Commission Communication ( ~ 172 Kb)
Press release
Top
Questions and Answers
European Commission Fisheries and Maritime Affairs
30th May 2005
What are serious infringements to CFP rules?
Serious infringements concern types of conduct considered to be particularly detrimental to the proper application of the rules of the CFP, in particular in areas such as stock conservation, monitoring of fishing activities and marketing of fisheries products. The Council of Ministers adopted a list of 19 types of behaviour which seriously infringe the rules of the CFP (serious infringements, hereafter). These include:
Obstructing the work of fisheries inspectors and observers;
falsifying evidence, documents or data;
unauthorized fishing, including fishing without a licence or permit;
using or keeping on board prohibited fishing gear or methods;
tampering with the satellite-
landing, storing, processing and placing on sale fishery products while not complying with the rules.
Member States are responsible for the proper enforcement of CFP measures which cover all activities related to fisheries from the net to the plate. When they detect serious infringements, they should impose penalties which are proportionate, dissuasive and effective. They are also requested to inform the Commission of the action taken in response to the detection of these infringements.
When and why was this measure set up?
The list of 19 serious infringements was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1999.
One of the main aims of this measure is to increase transparency in the enforcement of CFP rules and to encourage the adoption of adequate and dissuasive sanctions when serious infringements are detected. Member States should be encouraged, where necessary, to adapt their legislation to ensure that those sanctions have a real deterrent effect. The idea is that greater transparency, through the publication of serious infringements and their follow up will strengthen fishermen’s confidence in the fair and homogeneous application of the CFP rules across the Union, and encourage compliance.
What type of information do the reports from the Member States contain?
Member States have to submit a range of information for each serious infringement that they have detected.
type of offence and details (date, fishing zone, flag flown by the vessel concerned);
type of proceeding used (penal or administrative procedure);
date of ruling;
level of fine;
use of sanctions such as withdrawal of licence and seizure of fishing gear and catches.
The Commission uses this information to create overall statistics which are attached to its Communication.
What have the trends been so far?
Since the publication of the first report for the year 2000, the total number of serious infringements has varied considerably from one year to the other, ranging from 6,756 infringements in 2002, to 9,502 infringements in 2003 (figures for 2000 and 2001 were 7,298 and 8,139 respectively).
At first sight, the development over 2002 and 2003 seems very negative as the number of serious infringements went up by 40%. It could be that, given the disparities between the data Member States record, the trend is not as important as it appears. It may be also that the rate of detection of serious infringements is improving.
One notable progress with regard to deterrence is the fact that the average amount of fines imposed has increased from € 1,757 in 2002 to € 4,664 in 2003 (+165%). There is no doubt, however, that more needs to be done in this area as at 4/1000 of the value of landings in 2002, the level of fines remains too modest to represent a real deterrent for wrong-
Has the measure achieved its objective, and if not, why not?
The data received by the Commission have a number of failings in terms of their extent, nature and timeliness. The information provided was often inaccurate as the rules were not interpreted or data presented in a uniform way by all Member States.
There is no doubt that these shortcomings make it very difficult for the Commission to compare data and draw solid conclusions. However, it is clear – as stated above – that the level of fines should generally be increased. A number of Member States have taken some encouraging steps, including the increased use of administrative sanctions such as the temporary withdrawal of fishing licences or paying greater attention to certain types of infringements such as the catch of undersized fish.
What is the Commission intending to do to improve things in this field?
The Commission will consult Member States on how to improve the collection of data. In this process, national experts will be asked to give their views on ways to improve the quality of the data used to analyse the state of play of enforcement of CFP rules throughout the EU.
The conclusions from this work should have an impact on the report to be published in 2006. Furthermore, the Commission has launched an initiative aiming to simplify the CFP rules. This exercise should make it easier for Member States to transmit data to the Commission which, again, should improve the quality of the data.
The Commission also intends to propose a catalogue of sanctions to be imposed in cases of serious infringements. The catalogue should help increase the level of sanctions and contribute to the establishment of a more level playing-
Other developments, such as greater dialogue between stakeholders and the Commission, and increasing participation of fishermen in the CFP process through the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), should promote a sense of ownership among the players concerned, fostering a desire to see that rules are adhered to. Common inspections by multi-
Main points in the report
Out of the 9,502 serious infringements detected by Member States:
22% related to unauthorised fishing
17% concerned fishing without a licence
very few of the declared cases involved tampering with the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
84% of the infringement procedures concluded with the application of a penalty. While Greece and Germany sanctioned 100% of the cases detected, and Spain and the United Kingdom more than 90%, Sweden applied sanctions in only 24% of cases
There are substantial differences in the fines imposed by Member States, for example, for unauthorised fishing, Belgium imposed an average of € 375 while in the United Kingdom an average fine of € 19,255 was applied
The average fine imposed in the European Union amounted to € 4,664, ranging from € 282 in Finland to €77,922 in the United Kingdom
Overall, infringement procedures were opened in respect of about 10% of the EU fleet
The amount paid by the fisheries industry as a consequence of sanctions imposed in 2003 at € 28,7 million was roughly equal to 4/1000 of the 2002 landing value (€ 6,219 million)
See also:
The Commission Communication ( ~ 172 Kb)
Press release
Top