2 Establishment of a Community Fisheries
Control Agency
| (25617)
9149/04
COM(04) 289
+ ADD 1
SEC(04) 448
| Draft Council Regulation establishing a Community Fisheries Control Agency and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy
Commission Staff Working Paper: draft Council Regulation establishing a Community fisheries control agency — Impact Assessment and Ex-ante Evaluation
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 28 April 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 7 May 2004
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 20 May 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A
|
Background
2.1 Following the Commission's "Roadmap" Communication[1]
of 28 May 2002 on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),
the Council adopted towards the end of 2002 Regulation (EC) No.
2371/2002[2] on the conservation
and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. This includes
a chapter which provides for a new legal framework for a Community
control and enforcement system, designed to ensure that access
to, and exploitation of, the fish stocks is controlled throughout
the whole fisheries chain, that compliance with the rules of the
CFP is enforced, and that the responsibilities of the Member States
and the Commission in this area are clarified (with the former
essentially having operational responsibility, and the latter
exercising a general oversight).
2.2 The "Roadmap" also identified two aspects
of enforcement on which the Commission intended to produce further
Communications — the need for greater cooperation between
the various enforcement authorities, and the establishment of
a Joint Inspection Structure. These two issues were subsequently
dealt with at somewhat greater length in a Communication[3]
which the Commission produced in March 2003, where it noted that
the substantial differences in the ways in which Member States
have met their responsibilities in this area have undermined the
confidence of fishermen in the enforcement arrangements. It therefore
envisaged the adoption of a Joint Inspection Service under which
national means of inspection and surveillance would be pooled,
and the resources in question deployed by a Community Fisheries
Control Agency (CFCA), which would be responsible for the execution
of its tasks, and would have financial responsibility for the
budget which would be allocated to it by the Community.
2.3 The Commission said that it would deal with various
organisational matters in more detail in a proposal it intended
to put forward by the end of 2003 following a feasibility study.
However, it envisaged that agreements would be concluded annually
between the Agency and each national authority, setting out the
resources to be made available to the pool and the conditions
under which they can be deployed, but that Member States would
still remain responsible for enforcing the rules of the CFP.
The Commission also suggested that the CFCA should provide technical
advice for the formulation of Community inspection strategies
and contribute to the preparation of evaluation reports on control
and enforcement.
2.4 Although the feasibility study was still under
way, the European Council decided in December 2003 (as part of
a wider agreement on the location of Community institutions) that
the Agency should be based in Spain, and that its establishment
should be taken forward immediately. It therefore asked the Commission
to submit the necessary proposal by the end of March 2004. The
current document represents the Commission's response to that
request, though it reserves the right to modify the financial
perspectives in the light of the conclusions of the feasibility
study, which it says will be available in September 2004.
The current proposal
2.5 The proposal confirms that the main aim of a
Community Fisheries Control Agency would be the operational co-ordination
of inspection and surveillance by Member States, in order to assist
them in complying with their obligations under Community law and
to enable the Community's international obligations to be met
in a clear, transparent and uniform manner. It suggests that
such an agency would:
- establish plans for the joint
deployment of the means of control and inspection,[4]
within Community waters and ashore, pooled by the Member States
concerned with a particular fishery in relation to the extent
of their interest in it: such plans would include the issuing
of instructions concerning the geographical areas, stocks, fisheries
and fleets to be surveyed and inspected in a given period;
- establish for this purpose a Community Fisheries
Monitoring Centre (FMC) which will provide access to information
on positions of fishing vessels flying the flags of the Member
States concerned, thereby providing an overview not available
to individual Member States; and
- carry out tasks relating to the obligations of
the Community under regional fisheries organisations and bilateral
fisheries agreements, including the chartering and operation of
surveillance vessels and the contracting of observers for joint
use of the Member States concerned.
At the same time, there would be a corresponding
obligation on Member States to make available the resources needed,
and to deploy these "in accordance with the joint deployment
plan and the instructions of the Agency".
2.6 In addition, the Agency would be able to carry
out a number of other tasks, such as:
- assisting in the training of
inspectors;
- co-ordinating the joint procurement of goods
for control and inspection, and the implementation of joint pilot
projects for testing new control and inspection procedures;
- developing joint operational control and inspection
procedures; and
- elaborating criteria for the provision and exchange
of means of control and inspection.
2.7 Overall control of the Agency would be in the
hands of an Administrative Board, comprising representatives of
the Commission, Member States, and the fishing industry. However,
the latter would be nominated by the Commission, and would not
have a vote, and the Chairman of the Board would be elected from
among the Commission representatives. The Commission estimates
that the Agency would need a budget of the order of €5
million, which it envisages would be met mainly by a contribution
from the Community, though other sources of income would include
charges to Member States for specific services provided to them
on a contractual basis, as well as fees for publications and the
provision of training and other services. The Commission also
notes that the likely cost of the Agency is broadly equal to the
budgetary saving arising from the decision already taken that
the Commission should pass over to Member States responsibility
for providing an inspection vessel and observers in the area covered
by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation.
The Government's view
2.8 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 20 May 2004,
the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) points
out that the proposed Agency is an integral part of the programme
established by the Commission and set out in its 2002 Roadmap
and the subsequent Communication on uniform and effective implementation
of the CFP. He adds that differences in standards of enforcement
throughout the Community are a significant problem, and that the
establishment of the proposed Agency should result in major improvements,
but that its role will essentially be one of co-ordination and
fostering co-operation between Member States, with the Commission
having stressed that its establishment will not change the existing
responsibilities of the Member States for control and enforcement
within the scope of the CFP.
2.9 The Minister also says that the Government has
consistently pressed for more effective and consistent standards
of enforcement across the Community, and in principle supports
the establishment of the Agency as part of a wider programme of
action to improve standards of control and strengthen co-operation
between enforcement authorities. It therefore welcomes the proposal,
not least in providing information on the Agency's perceived objectives
and goals. He points out that the Government has contributed
to the feasibility study, and will continue to play an active
and constructive part in the forthcoming discussion of the proposals,
when it will be seeking to ensure that the role of the Agency
would not undermine the responsibilities of individual Member
States for control and enforcement.
Conclusion
2.10 In our Report of 7 May 2003 on the Commission
Communication which first put forward the case for a Joint Inspection
Structure and Community Fisheries Control Agency, we said that
it was quite clear that such a step was of sufficient significance
to warrant a debate in European Standing Committee A, the main
question being whether this should take place at that stage or
when the Commission's more detailed proposal had become available.
Even though the Communication in question was in fairly general
terms, we concluded on balance that an early debate would be appropriate,
since this would enable the House to make an input at a time when
the Commission's thinking was still developing.
2.11 In the event, the debate which took place
in European Standing Committee A on 11 September 2003 was of a
more general nature, with relatively little emphasis being given
to the question of a Joint Inspection Structure. It is also clear
that the current document elaborates to a very considerable extent
on the thinking first set out in the earlier Communication, and
that — however welcome greater coordination may be in principle
— it gives rise to a number of important practical issues.
These include in particular whether the pooling proposed would
apply to the whole of a Member State's enforcement capabilities,
and, if not, the proportion which would be affected; which stocks
would be covered by the scheme; and how (and by whom) decisions
on these points would be taken, where the proposal as drafted
appears to place significant obligations on Member States to comply
with plans drawn up by the Authority. In this last connection,
we also note the important locus which the Commission would have
on the new Authority, given its power to nominate industry representatives
on the Administrative Board and the fact that the Chairman would
be elected from among its representatives.
2.12 We believe that those issues should be explored
further, and, for that reason, we are recommending that the current
document should also be debated in European Standing Committee
A.
1 (23511) - : see HC 152-xxxv (2001-02), para 1 (3
July 2002). Back
2
OJ No. L 358, 31.12.02, p.59. Back
3
(24394) 7623/03: see HC 63-xx (2002-03), para 2 (7 May 2003).
Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee A, 11 September
2003, cols. 3-42. Back
4
These include surveillance vessels and aircraft, as well as inspectors
and observers. Back
|
