7EU Fisheries Control
|
Committee’s assessment |
Politically important |
|
Not cleared from scrutiny; further information requested; drawn to the attention of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee |
|
|
Document details |
(a) Report from the Commission on the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy; (b) European Court of Auditors Special Report No 08/2017 “EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed” |
|
Legal base |
— |
|
Department |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |
|
Document Numbers |
(a) (38678), 8375/17 + ADD 1, COM(17) 192; (b) (38830),— |
Summary and Committee’s conclusions
7.1Successful fisheries management relies on an effective system of control and enforcement, trusted and respected by all involved.
7.2Fisheries control and enforcement aims to ensure the correct application of regulations regarding fisheries and to impose compliance with these rules where necessary. In this respect, competences and responsibilities are shared among Member States, the Commission and the operators. Member States which do not comply with these rules can have infringement proceedings taken out against them.
7.3The Commission’s Report (document (a)) assessed the implementation of the current EU system for fisheries control and enforcement. It found that the system was not entirely fit for purpose. In particular, there was a strong call from stakeholders to adapt the control system to the new Common Fisheries Policy, addressing in particular the landing obligation. Among the other conclusions, differential implementation across Member States was identified, hindering the level playing field among operators and therefore their trust in the system.
7.4The European Court of Auditors (document (b)) highlighted similar concerns. Scotland was included in the audit and was the focus of a number of criticisms, including insufficiently dissuasive sanctions, lack of transparency in the allocation of quota and inconsistency in the recorded fishing capacity of vessels.
7.5The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice) draws attention to UK efforts to respond to control weaknesses, partly by making use of EU funding available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. The Minister notes that the Commission has threatened to withhold or reduce the amount of funding if the UK did not improve its compliance with certain aspects of the Control Regulations. Steps have been taken to re-assure the Commission, including the establishment in 2015 of a UK Fisheries Enforcement and Compliance Coordination Group.
7.6On the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Minister observes that the impact and timing of any changes to the Control Regulation will need to be taken into account as part of the UK’s preparation for exit from the EU. Consideration is also being given to the future of EMFF after exit.
7.7These two documents highlight deficiencies in the EU’s fisheries control systems and the need for amendment. It seems likely that the Commission will, as a minimum, propose some changes to the existing legislation. At the other end of the scale, there may be a more fundamental review of the control system.
7.8There is an important Brexit element to this discussion. Despite the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the EU’s rules will continue to apply to UK vessels fishing in EU waters. Any future development of the EU’s approach is therefore of relevance to the UK—just as the UK’s approach to control and enforcement will be of interest to the EU.
7.9Given the continuing significance to the UK of the EU’s rules post-Brexit, we urge the Government to engage in discussions. We ask the Government to confirm that it will do so even if revised rules only enter into force after the UK’s exit.
7.10The EU’s European Fisheries Control Agency is designed to organise coordination and cooperation between national control and inspection activities so that the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy are respected and applied effectively. Has the Government identified any benefits to such coordination and cooperation and, if so, how might the Government seek to safeguard any such benefits post-Brexit?
7.11The Court of Auditors Report identifies a number of weaknesses in Scotland. We ask that the Minister respond to the identified weaknesses. Regardless of the UK’s application of EU rules, these are issues to be addressed as part of a future UK fisheries policy.
7.12We retain the documents under scrutiny and draw them to the attention of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We would welcome a response to this Report within four weeks.
Full details of the documents
(a) Report from the Commission on the evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy: (38678), 8375/17 + ADD 1, COM(17) 192; (b) European Court of Auditors Special Report No 08/2017 “EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed”: (38830),—.
Commission Report (document (a))
7.13The Commission has undertaken an evaluation of the implementation and impacts of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (the Control Regulation) establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the period 2010–2016.
7.14As part of the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) by the Commission, the evaluation also included an assessment of whether the Regulation was fit for purpose by focusing on its simplification and regulatory burden reduction aspects.
7.15The Commission concluded that the Control Regulation was essential for ensuring adherence to the CFP rules. They considered that Member States had generally implemented the main provisions although, due to the complexity of the rules and time needed for adoption, some of the provisions were in some cases delayed.
7.16In addition, the Commission considered that the legislative framework was not entirely fit for purpose and noted that there was a strong call from stakeholders to adapt the control system to the new CFP, addressing in particular the landing obligation and increasing synergies with other policies, notably the environment and market.
7.17The Commission also reported that a lack of clarity with certain provisions resulted in different implementation approaches across Member States which hindered the level playing field among operators and therefore their trust in the system. Furthermore, the obsolescence of certain provisions, lack of flexibility and sometimes ineffective implementation by Member States hampered the effectiveness and efficiency of the legal regime. In this regard the Commission considered that provisions on sanctions and the points system, infringement follow-up, data sharing, fish traceability, monitoring and catch reporting tools for vessels under twelve metres required attention.
European Court of Auditors Report (document (b))
7.18The European Court of Auditors (ECA) Report, “EU fisheries control: more efforts needed” is the culmination of audits carried out in four Member States—UK, Italy, France and Spain. The UK audit was carried out in Scotland, which was the focus of the observations and conclusions in the report, but catch data were checked for the UK as a whole because separate data are not submitted by each devolved administration.
7.19The ECA noted that, since its last audit in 2007 and the subsequent reform of the Control Regulation, Member States have made progress although a number of areas were highlighted as requiring further work:
- the reliability of information on fishing fleets, particularly fleet capacity, needs to be improved115—it is recommended that Member States put procedures in place to verify the data stored in fishing fleets registers and ensure it includes checks on vessel engine power and gross tonnage;
- wider deployment of vessel monitoring systems, including to the smaller fleet;
- greater transparency in how Producer Organisations allocate quota among fisheries (noting that, in France and Scotland particularly, authorities did not always know which criteria had been used to distribute the quotas or the amounts allocated to each of the beneficiaries);
- more timely exchange of reliable fisheries data, including the establishment by the Commission of an information exchange platform for that purpose;
- inspections could be improved through a more standardised approach; and
- sanctions imposed ought to take into account persistent or recurrent offending and the points system ought to be consistently applied (the Court concluded that sanctions in Scotland were less dissuasive than in other Member States).
Explanatory Memoranda
Commission Report (document (a))
7.20In his Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 15 July 2017, the Minister indicates that the Report mainly affects the UK through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Through the EMFF, he says, the UK has been allocated €243 million (£190 million) over 2014–2020, divided between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. He explains that the UK plans to use EMFF fishing control money to address areas of weakness in UK fisheries control.
7.21There is a risk that the Commission might withhold or reduce eligible funding for such measures, however, as it has expressed concern with the UK’s compliance with certain aspects of the Fisheries Control Regulations (i.e. the UK had not demonstrated that it had established a single UK competent authority for fisheries management and also lacked effective review procedures).
7.22The Minister states that the UK Fisheries Enforcement and Compliance Coordination Group was established in 2015 in order to address the Commission’s concerns. It commissioned a review of the UK National Control Action Programmes, which was then submitted to the Commission along with further evidence that the UK was meeting its obligations.
7.23The Minister adds:
“In addition, work is being conducted at the Commission’s request to review over the next six months the Control Regulation obligations concerning fish traceability, weighing of fish products, sales notes and transportation documents. Implementation is at a very early stage so it is difficult currently to determine its implications.
“The Commission has acknowledged the good work already done by the UK’s implementation of the EMFF ex-ante conditionality action plan on control. The UK has also submitted the report on the fulfilment of the ex-ante conditionalities with the EMFF Annual Implementation Report on 31 May 2017.”
7.24The Minister notes that, although the UK is not specifically cited within the Report, the UK is already taking steps to address certain areas broadly highlighted in the report as a result of separate Commission Audits.
7.25Looking forward, it seems likely that the Commission will propose legislative changes, but it is not clear whether the Control Regulations will be fully reviewed or whether the Commission will look at amending some of the existing provisions.
7.26On Brexit, the Minister says:
“We will need to consider the impact and timing of any changes to the Control Regulation as part of our preparation for exit from the EU. Consideration is also being given to the future of EMFF after exit.”
European Court of Auditors Report (document (b))
7.27In his Explanatory Memorandum (EM) of 28 June 2017, the Minister notes that no urgent implications arise from the Report. The Minister observes that the auditors chose to base their report on visits to a small number of Member States and it is not therefore certain that the findings represent the implementation of the Control Regulation across the whole of the EU. The UK, he says, is managing implementation though a working group, which meets with the Devolved Administrations to ensure a consistent UK wide approach.
Previous Committee Reports
None.
115 For Scotland, the ECA found that, in 60 % of cases tested the capacity of the vessels in the fleet register did not correspond to the capacity shown in the vessel registration documents; in most cases the capacity recorded in the fleet register exceeded that shown in the underlying documents, by an average of 30 %.
1 December 2017