“Since our 2007 audit, and the reform of the Control Regulation, the Member States and the Commission have made progress in several areas. However, we found that due to significant weaknesses in most audited areas, the European Union did not yet have a sufficiently effective system for fisheries controls in place to support the success of the CFP (common fisheries policy)”, states the report of the European Court of Auditors evaluating the quality of fisheries controls that was published on Tuesday 30 May.
The auditors also found that the member states visited (France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom) had not yet fully implemented the EU’s fisheries control regulation.
The Court noted the following weaknesses: - the member states visited “did not sufficiently verify the accuracy of their fleets’ capacity and of the information on the vessels in the fleet register”; - the four member states did not verify the tonnage of their fishing vessels, and that two (France and Spain) had not yet performed the required verifications of engine power; - a significant number of discrepancies were found between the vessel details recorded in the fleet register and those contained in the supporting documents.
89% of vessels not monitored by VMS. The Court found that the four member states it visited were implementing fisheries management measures adequately. The member states’ vessel monitoring systems (VMS) using satellite-based tracking technology provided powerful information for monitoring and controlling fishing activities. However, “89 % of the EU fleet were not monitored by VMS, which hindered effective fisheries management in some fisheries and for some species”, the Court stated.
Use of fishing quotas. The member states correctly managed the uptake of the fishing quotas allocated to them. However, when member state authorities allowed producer organisations to manage quota distribution, “they did not always know which criteria were used to distribute the quotas to each of the beneficiaries”. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for member states: - to know the actual beneficiaries of fishing opportunities; - to assess any potential adverse impact on the environment and local economies; - and take the necessary corrective measures where appropriate. “This lack of transparency increases the risk that specific interests of certain economic operators are favoured at the expense of others” the Court says. It was difficult to monitor compliance with fisheries management measures, especially for vessels not linked to satellite-based vessel monitoring systems. The auditors did, however, see examples of good practice where professional fisheries organisations required their members to comply with additional, but more focused, conservation measures to those required by the CFP.
Data on fishing activities collected in the framework of the control regulation were not sufficiently complete and reliable. Catch data for vessels making paper-based declarations were incomplete. Two of the four member states visited did not sufficiently share and trace information concerning activities of vessels from one flag member state to another.
In general, the member states visited planned and carried out fisheries inspections well. However, the fact that inspectors did not have real-time access to information about vessels reduced the effectiveness of inspections. The Court also found that sanctions applied were not always dissuasive. The points system, one of the main innovations of the current control regulation intending to ensure equal treatment of fishing operators, was applied to very different extents across the member states visited. Lastly, there is currently no European register of infringements and sanctions, which would allow a better follow-up of points applied, a more effective risk analysis and enhanced transparency among member states. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)