IP/03/1534
Brussels, 11 November 2003
Fisheries:
Commission
opens
infringement
procedure against Spain and the UK for failure to
enforce certain fisheries rules
The European Commission has sent Spain and the United Kingdom a letter
of formal notice with regard to serious failings in their obligations to ensure
the enforcement of certain rules under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
This in line with the Commission’s commitment to strengthening
enforcement. Following the CFP reform, the procedure combines the threestep infringement procedure with the possibility for the Commission to take
preventive measures if non-compliance could lead to a serious threat to fish
stocks. The Commission’s letters detail a series of grave failings including
serious shortcomings in inspections and monitoring of fishing and landing
activities, validating and cross-checking of data, follow up of infringements
and applying deterrent sanctions against wrong-doers. The evidence comes
from inspections by Commission inspectors over a number of years and
correspondence between the Commission and the authorities concerned.
The consequences of these failings include overshooting of quotas,
including of vulnerable stocks such as cod and northern hake. Spain and the
UK have two months to demonstrate that they comply with the rules and to
submit their comments to the Commission. In case of non-compliance, the
Commission may take the necessary preventive measures to protect the
threatened fish resources and issue a reasoned opinion to the Member State
concerned.
Commenting on this case, Commissioner Franz Fischler, responsible for Agriculture,
Rural Development and Fisheries, said : “At a time when fish stocks are threatened,
respect for the rules to ensure fair and sustainable fisheries have become all the
more important for the future of the industry. The Commission has given Spain and
the UK many opportunities to tackle the unacceptable weaknesses in their
enforcement. I trust that both will respond promptly and positively to end these
counterproductive practices which undermine conservation, particularly of vulnerable
stocks."
Conservation and control measures
Member States are responsible for the implementation of conservation and control
measures. They must ensure the application of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and
quotas. For a number of years, the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES) has indicated weaknesses in official catch data due to misreporting and
unrecorded landings of catches. The result of such practices is that quotas are
overshot - undermining the conservation of fish stocks - fish prices fall, withdrawals
of unwanted fish from the market increase and scientific data are undermined. The
Commission will therefore continue to take action to ensure that all Member States
meet their obligations in enforcing CFP measures.
Failings in enforcement
The failings noted in the Commission letters relate to non-compliance by Spain and
the UK with their obligations on inspection and enforcement under the CFP. CFP
rules require documentation on the species and quantities caught per fishing zones.
Also required are landing declarations and sales notes. If transport is involved,
documentation has to accompany the fish products. The relevant authorities must
use these documents along with their inspection records and data from the Vessel
Monitoring System (VMS) on the movements of vessels to carry out cross-checking
and to verify compliance with the conservation rules.
Such cross-checking should show up infringements to the rules on data recording.
These involve recording catches as coming from an area other than the one in which
they were made, or recording catches of unregulated species (say conger eel) when
catches involve species under quota (hake) or reporting less than the actual catches.
Such violations lead to overfishing of some stocks and under- or over-estimations of
quantities caught.
Spain
Commission inspectors have found that Spain does not allocate the necessary
resources to ensure the adequate inspection and monitoring of fishing activities at
sea and onshore. The problems generated by understaffing and insufficient
equipment are compounded by a lack of co-ordination among local and national
authorities, incompatible electronic equipment and delays in the transmission of
certain documents to the relevant authorities. The Commission also notes failings in
following up observed cases of false declarations. It cites instances of discrimination
whereby in the Canary Islands, inspections were directed predominantly at foreign
vessels while Spanish vessels were exempted from the obligation to announce their
arrival in port. Shortcomings are also observed in the inspections of vessels fishing
under the fisheries agreement between the EU and Mauritania.
The evidence presented by the Commission includes an instance over the period 2126 January 2001, when its inspectors witnessed landings, sales and transport of fish
products which were not subject to any control by the local enforcement authorities.
When Commission inspectors checked the data recorded by the local inspectors
over that period, they found that only 15% of the 200 tonnes of hake put on the
market had been declared. Furthermore, nothing at all had been declared in relation
to the landing of 12 tonnes of hake by a vessel flying the UK flag.
The Commission also reports the existence – in some cases on the basis of
evidence from other Member States – of hidden storage chambers, some
refrigerated, onboard vessels registered in Spain. Catches, often of hake, are
concealed in these chambers before being landed in Spain, undetected due to the
lack of inspections in port noted earlier. Similarly, there is evidence of misreporting
by Spanish vessels, involving the recording of conger eel instead of hake.
The Commission concludes that the data on catches transmitted by Spain to the
Commission, particularly for northern hake – for which a proposal on a recovery plan
is currently before the Council – are neither reliable nor complete. Overfishing of
northern hake is therefore very likely to have occurred in 2001 and 2002. Overall,
non-compliance by Spain in these areas, results in inadequate management of fish
resources which could represent a serious threat to these stocks.
2
The UK
The means allocated by the UK to its enforcement authorities are not sufficient to
allow them to fully meet their obligations in particular with regard to the verification
and cross-checking of the various data. The Commission also notes many cases
where the UK has failed to take appropriate action against parties who do not comply
with the rules.
The Commission notes cases of misreporting. Pelagic (mid-water) species such as
herring and mackerel are recorded as caught in one area when the vessels’ VMS
records show that they were fishing elsewhere. There are similar practices with
demersal species (close to sea floor) such as sole and plaice. To avoid detection,
vessels often turn off their VMS system, an offence that is not followed up by the UK
authorities who do not appear to use of the VMS as an enforcement tool.
There is also misreporting by species involving catches of saithe, cod, hake, megrim
and monkfish being recorded mainly as ling, greater forkbeard, tusk and dogfish.
Cod have been found concealed under ling in large containers declared as holding
only ling. Such landings generally occur outside designated ports or designated porttimes where the obligation to hand in the corresponding logbook before landing
takes place does not apply. If the landing happens to be inspected, the
corresponding logbook can be filled in accordingly afterwards thus preventing the
notification of the infringement.
Landings are often under-recorded. Given the considerable quantities involved,
declarations of pelagic species are based on estimations of the catches. In the case
of demersal species, in many cases standardised boxes with a predefined weight are
overfilled resulting in differences of up to 20%.
The Commission also provides data to show the low ratio between the number of
detected infringements and the number of sanctions. While severe penalties may be
imposed by the courts, “the sanctioning system as a whole does not meet the level
of deterrence required by EC legislation”, the Commission notes.
The Commission concludes that these failings may lead to a serious threat to the
conservation of fish resources and in particular to vulnerable species such as cod
currently subject to strict measures and for which a Commission proposal on a
recovery plan is currently before the Council.
Response
The two Member States have two months in which they are invited to demonstrate
compliance with the rules and give their comments to the Commission. After
examining these observations, or if no observations have been submitted within the
set time period, the Commission may issue a reasoned opinion and/or may take the
necessary preventive action. Preventive action, such as restricted fishing days, will
however only be taken if there is evidence of a risk that fishing activities could lead to
a serious threat to the conservation of fish due to a lack of compliance with the rules
on conservation, control, inspection or enforcement.
3