The report concludes that while significant progress was observed over the period, the control situation remained in general unsatisfactory. The Member States did not deploy sufficient human resources to ensure control of the CFP measures, they did not take adequate action to guarantee the quality of the inspections which they carried out, and only a few Member States had put in place strategies to optimise the use made of the means which were available to them. The report also points out that it is impossible to make accurate comparisons between the Member States' performance using the information provided in the national implementation reports, and proposes steps which will be taken in the next edition of the report to remedy this situation.
"Despite some real progress in recent years, more effective enforcement will require greater commitment and determination by the Member States. Stakeholders, too, have a crucial role to play in encouraging compliance with the rules especially at a time when they are having a greater say in their preparation.", Joe Borg, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, commented.
During the period 2003-2005, the Commission's own inspection missions focused on a number of sensitive areas which were identified as representing a high risk for non-compliance. These included fisheries targeting stocks which are subject to recovery and other long-term management plans, and the use of satellite-based vessel monitoring systems (VMS). The inspection missions highlighted a number of serious shortcomings and discrepancies in the way the CFP was implemented, including lack of sufficient inspections and failure to cross-check VMS data with that recorded in vessels' logbooks. Among the consequences observed were continued use of banned gear, such as driftnets, and major discrepancies between declared and observed catches, for example in the Baltic cod fishery. The use of VMS was marred by lack of compliance by fishermen, and by Member States' apparent reluctance to use it as a tool to manage fishing effort. As a result, effort management rules seem to be implemented in such a way as to cause minimal disturbance to existing fishing activity.
The annual reports provided by the Member States on how they have implemented the CFP control rules are generally difficult to assess due to the lack of both a standard format, and a list of information that must be included. The reports submitted varied in length from one page to over 100.
The data they contain are almost impossible to compare, due to the lack of clear definitions of the terms used. In particular, there is no uniform definition of what constitutes an 'inspection', despite previous attempts by the Commission to standardise reporting in this matter.
This issue will be addressed in the recasting of the Control Regulation which is planned for 2008.
Despite these flaws in reporting, it remains clear that the resources deployed are inadequate and the way they are targeted is far from optimal. The problem of allocation is aggravated by the fact that, in many fisheries, the cost of control is already high in relation to the value of the fish caught.
The report concludes with a series of proposals on how the implementation of the CFP control rules could be improved, including: the allocation of more skilled human resources; the dedication of more resources to the control of landings by vessels fishing in international waters; systematic training for all inspectors; closer coordination and cooperation between Member States; and more appropriate and effective sanctions. The report does not address in detail the question of the sanctions applied by the Member States in the case of serious infringements, which will be the subject of a separate report to be adopted shortly.
