|
National control issue could constrain plans |
ONE of the constraints for a new Community fisheries inspection and control policy could be the will of certain EU member states to still want to maintain the control over their fleet.
In other words, it might be difficult to carry out "standardised and homogenous controls" in all member states.
This has been outlined in the Europêche/COGECA position on planned reform of the control system for the Common Fisheries Policy.
But the Europeche/Cogeca stance is in favour of the development by the Commission of a new approach in terms of inspection and control as long as certain details are clarified first, given that strengthening of the rules is essential,
On harmonisation of sanctions, the "margin of appreciation" of an independent justice should not be infringed, but the principles eliminating the economic benefit resulting from infringements, should be “well used.” Meanwhile, the idea that member states assign too many resources to the controls at sea must be verified given that the question at stake consists more in knowing how these resources are actually allocated. In order to establish an efficient control policy, it is necessary to sufficiently carry out controls at sea, since it is the only means of verification of the use of appropriate nets and meshes. The control at the landing should be carried out according to the principle of the “bottle neck,” meaning that the catches landed should be verified properly there where they are caught. The most important catches in terms of volume should be verified first.
“A new policy framework is indeed necessary. A simplification of the rules for the controls is essential, as well as the standardisation of certain elements of these controls. Account should also be taken of the cost effectiveness, even if this should, however, not constitute a priority in the organisation of the controls. It is obvious that a culture of compliance is necessary in this respect. The controls should be seen as an end in itself, but should mainly aim at the search for a solution for the problems when the rules regarding the stock management are implemented. Fundamentally, the compliance depends on its quality, its transparency and clarity. Information sessions should be organised for the fishermen on this subject and on the risks for sanctions, so as to clearly explain them that it is useful to respect the legal rules aiming at improving the stocks.”
It is desirable to use the most modern technologies. However, the question of the costs should be clarified. In this respect, the principle of proportionality should be applied. If the new technologies allow an improvement of the control of the fishing activities for the species that are subject of the quotas, then why should the vessels fishing species that are not subject of the quotas also resort to these expensive technologies?
“We do not object to the principle of cost effectiveness since the primary objective was always the control and especially the implementation of the rules. However, contrary to the numerous other sectors, the control of the fishing activities cannot be solely defined according to the principle of cost effectiveness.
“The adaptation of the mandate of the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) raises questions, because nobody knows what exactly it will be made up of. It is necessary to select the key activities that require a specific control need and the implementation. The access of the CFCA to data and information from the member states should be the subject of a simple regulation, without which the CFCA could not play a constructive role as a control and coordination body, during the exchanges of information guaranteeing transparency and assessment of the control system in the member states."
The response underlines that it believes that inspections at sea are absolutely necessary.
“ The controls on land are as important as controls at sea and should focus on the key activities so as to reach solutions that enable to solve concrete problems. The quality of the controls does not depend on the number of inspections but rather on their relevancy and their efficiency. Their goal is thus to catch those that infringe the law, which is decisive if we aspire a sustainable use of the resources.”
In order not to excessively blacken the image of the sector, it would be judicious to indicate in the Commission’s text that the inspections are not organised with the same degree of efficiency in all member states, be it at sea or on land and that the controls will actually take place. It should also be made sure not to end up in a situation of harassment at work by superimposing inspections at too many levels, which would constantly occupy the fishermen with administrative tasks.
The measures for the control of commercial exchanges and in the harbours are crucial. A targeted inspection and a control strategy for the activities and locations that present an important risk for infringements are also advisable. The sector requests the assurance that the harmonisation of the conversion factors used in the different member states to obtain the quantities by “equivalent live weight” does not damage any member state.
The recording of sales data for fisheries products only concerns nowadays the first sales done by the fishing boat. However the approved first buyers are involved in other commercial operations which are not considered as first sales. In view of a better knowledge of the flux of fisheries products and the control of these, it is recommended to assess the interest of extending the obligation to declare any commercial transaction for all the fish bought by approved first buyers.
The obligation to submit lots of documents for vessels landing fish in harbours differing from the places where the fish is sold (obligation is linked to the landing of fish, then to its transport before its first sale) is complex and sometimes far away from what is feasible in real practice. This obligation concerns the vessels which have fishing rights in the waters of a member state differing from the flag state, and which have had to put in place logistics solutions to save the transport costs of the fish to the place where it will be sold. The obligation concerns equally fishing vessels having to sell their catches to distant buyers so as to better valorise their catches. Maintaining this logistics scheme is essential for the economic viability of the vessels concerned.
Given that that fisheries products must be sold to approved buyers on the first sale, it is recommended to simplify the obligations for these vessels and to make sure that they are still able to guarantee the traceability and integrity of the products being transported.
Regarding the 8% tolerance margin granted through the regulation regarding multi-annual recovery or management plans of certain fisheries, the industry requests flexibility given that this percentage is already very sensitive for certain species – and that in any case, it musn’t be cut down to 5% as the Commission intends to do.
The industry also requests more flexibility in the multi-annual management of TACs and quotas, i.e. for all fish stocks and not only for those submitted to an analytical TAC, the member states can ask the Commission to carry over to the next year 10 or 15% of the said quota.
Any strengthening of the capacities of the Commission should be subject to a consensus with the sector and the member states. Likewise, the decisions regarding the CFP, including control, should follow a bottom-up procedure.
The Commission has already, in cases of extreme emergency where a member state does not fulfil its obligations, the possibility to announce interruptions in the fishery . It should in any case do so after having duly consulted the industry. An entire fishery, even a segment of fishery, can hardly pay the price of bad behaviour of isolated individuals. The initiative to close a fisheries must remain the exclusive competence of member states. “In addition, the introduction of prevention measures, including a warning system, seems sensible to us. A flow of information that is as efficient as possible should be established.”
www.fishupdate.com is published by Special Publications. Special Publications also publish FISHupdate magazine, Fish Farmer, the Fish Industry Yearbook, the Scottish Seafood Processors Federation Diary, the Fish Farmer Handbook and a range of wallplanners.
Should fisheries be closed during breeding time to allow stocks to reach more sustainable levels?
