Commissie start procedure tegen Spanje en Engeland voor overtreding visserijbepalingen (en)

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 three-step 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 21-26 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.

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 port-times 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.