Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)368 - Amendment of Council Regulations 1224/2009, 768/2005, 1967/2006, 1005/2008, and Regulation 2016/1139 as regards fisheries control - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)368 - Amendment of Council Regulations 1224/2009, 768/2005, 1967/2006, 1005/2008, and Regulation 2016/1139 as regards fisheries ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)368  |
| date | 30-05-2018 |
1. CONTEXTOFTHEPROPOSAL
Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The Common Fishery Policy (CFP)1 objectives are to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and are managed in a way that is consistent to achieve economic, social and employment benefits. Its success depends very much on the implementation of an effective control and enforcement system. The measures establishing a Union Fisheries Control System (FCS) for ensuring compliance with rules of the CFP are provided for in four different legal acts: 1) the Fisheries Control Regulation2; 2) the Regulation establishing a European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)3; 3) the Regulation establishing a system to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Regulation)4; and 4) the Regulation on the sustainable management of the external fishing fleets (SMEF)5. The proposal aims at revising the FCS, with the exception of the SMEF Regulation, which was recently revised.
With the exception of the SMEF regulation, which was recently revised, the current Union Fisheries Control System (FCS) was designed prior to the reformed Common Fisheries Policy6 (CFP) and as such it is not fully coherent with it. In addition, the system reflects control strategies, methodologies and challenges of more than 10 years ago, and it is not equipped to effectively address current and future needs in terms of fisheries data and fleet control, to match the constant evolution of fishing practices and techniques and to take advantage of modern and more cost-effective control technologies and data exchange systems. The current system also does not reflect new and modern Union policies recently adopted, such as the plastic strategy, the digital single market strategy, and the international ocean governance.
A recent Commission REFIT evaluation7,8, a special report of the European Court of Auditors9 and a Resolution by the European Parliament10 have all shown that the FCS has deficiencies and is overall not fit for purpose.
Several discussions and exchanges of view have taken place in the Council11, in the Parliament, in the Administrative Board of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA)12,
Contents
- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- The proposal is consistent with the overall legal framework established by the reformed CFP
- insofar as it lays down a series of provisions for controls in the supply chain, including
- Finally, the proposal aims at implementing commitments recently taken by the Commission
- 12 13 14 15 16 17
- Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
- 19 20
- No negative
- 22 23 24 25
- Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
- Article 1: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 Article 2: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 Article 3: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006
- TOPIC 1: ENFORCEMENT
- Inspection and surveillance
- Amended: 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
- 89a, 91a, 91b, 92a, 92b, Annexes III and IV
- 82, 85, 90, 91, 92
- Enable Member States
- TOPIC 4: SYNERGIES WITH OTHER POLICIES
- The
- 4, 50
- TOPIC 5: ALIGNMENT WITH THE LISBON TREATY
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 354 28.12.2013 p.22.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1. Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005, OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p.1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, OJ L 268, 29.10.2008, p.1.
Regulation (EU) No 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 347, 28.12.2017, p. 1. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p.22. COM(2017) 192 final. SWD(2017) 134 final.
Special Report of the Court of Auditors EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed.
European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2016 on how to make fisheries controls in Europe uniform -www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-/%2BTA%2BP8-TA-20160407%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0//EN">www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-/+TA+P8-TA-2016-0407+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
Council Conclusions on Special Report No 8/2017 from the European Court of Auditors-data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document.
with Member States and with stakeholders since the publication of all these documents. Those discussions confirmed that there is unanimous agreement among the European Institutions and among direct stakeholders that the Fisheries Control System is not effective and efficient and that, as such, it is not entirely fit for purpose to sustain the achievements of the CFP objectives. Furthermore, shortcomings in the current regulatory framework were also identified by the REFIT Platform in June 2017 in its opinion on the submission by the Finnish Government Stakeholder survey on the control of EU fisheries13.
The specific objectives of the proposal are to: 1) Bridge the gaps with the CFP and with other EU policies; 2) Simplify the legislative framework and reduce unnecessary administrative burden; 3) Improve availability, reliability and completeness of fisheries data and information, in particular of catch data, and allow exchange and sharing of information; and 4) Remove obstacles that hinder the development of a culture of compliance and the equitable treatment of operators within and across Member States.
The proposal is one of the legislative initiatives under REFIT foreseen for adoption in 2018.
Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
and it aims at bridging current gaps with it, mainly relating to the effective control of the
landing obligation and to control of the fishing capacity. In addition, the proposal is also
consistent with the Common Organisation of the Market commonly referred to as 'CMO'14,
traceability provisions that are essential for fulfilling consumer information requirements.
concerning in particular the fight against illegal fishing in the Joint Communication on Ocean Governance15.
Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal not only maintains consistency with other Union policies, but also enhances the synergies with them, by supporting the implementation of: 1) the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy16, as far as fishing gears are concerned; 2) the Digital Single Market strategy17, through the promotion of digital solutions and interoperable systems; and 3) the stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions18, through reinforced control measures. Furthermore, the proposal aims at improving synergies with the food and feed law, through better alignment of definitions, and with the environmental legislation (Habitat Directive), insofar as it empower Member States to effectively control fishing activities in fisheries restricted areas.
www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%2520Evaluation%2520-%2520Issuing%2520of%2520Recommendations.pdf">https://www.efca.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EFCA%20Evaluation%20-%20Issuing%20of%20Recommendations.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/xiv3acontrol_of_eu_fisheries.pdf Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p.1. JOIN(2016) 49 final. COM(2018) 28 final 16.01.2018
SWD(2017) 155 final: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. COM(2017) 623 final - ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy.
8
2. LEGALBASIS, SUBSIDIARITYAND PROPORTIONALITY
Legal basis
The proposal is based on Article 43(2) of the TFEU on establishing provisions necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the CFP, which is an area of exclusive EU competence pursuant to Article 3(d) of the Treaty.
Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
N.A.
Proportionality
The proposal provides for targeted changes not going beyond what is necessary to achieve the set objectives. Section 7.4.2 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal discusses the proportionality of the policy choices of the proposal.
Choice of the instrument
Proposed instrument: amendment of current Regulations.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ANDIMPACTASSESSMENTS
A comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the Control Regulation and its impacts on the CFP, covering the period 2010-2016, was carried out as part of the REFIT exercise and its results published in the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council19 and the accompany Staff Working Document 'REFIT Evaluation of the impact of the fisheries
regulation'20
The evaluation confirmed that the Control Regulation is highly relevant for ensuring compliance with the CFP. The text adopted in 2009 tackled the main shortcomings of the previous system, contributing to step up the overall level of compliance with the CFP, to improve communication, exchange and data sharing among the various stakeholders, to generally improve the quality and quantity of fisheries data, and to foster the level playing field among operators. The evaluation however also showed that more needs to be done and that the current legislative framework is not entirely fit for purpose, thereby prompting its revision:
• Enforcement rules not deterrent enough;
• Inadequate provisions for fisheries data;
• Complexity of the egislative framework and ambiguity of legal provisions;
COM(2017) 192 final, eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:192:FIN SWD(2017) 134 final eur-lex.europa.eu/resource?uri=cellar:2c2f2554-0faf-11e7-8a35-01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
• Lack of measures to control new provisions of the reformed CFP and lack of
synergies with other policies.
Stakeholder consultations
An extensive public consultation was conducted in the framework of the REF IT evaluation in 2016. The results are published on the Europa webpage21. Additional targeted consultations were later carried out with the aim to (i) agree on the problems identified by the European Commission in the REFIT evaluation; (ii) agree on the need for action; and (iii) collect inputs and receive feedback from as many stakeholders as possible on the forward-looking elements of the inception impact assessment and on the specific proposed actions proposed by the Commission to address the issues identified.
The consultations involved Member States competent authorities, Advisory Councils, EU and national organisations and associations, environmental NGOs, the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and its Administrative Board, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), FRONTEX (sea border control). Discussions were held in several different fora to ensure a broad and exhaustive coverage of all relevant stakeholders, including the Council Working Party on Internal and External Fisheries Policy, and the PECH Committee of the European Parliament.
There was a common agreement among stakeholders on the need to revise the EU fisheries control system. Contributions and feedbacks received highlighted deficiencies in the implementation of the Fisheries Control Regulation, as well as in some of its provisions. Stakeholders generally supported the Commission in tackling the following major issues: alignment to the CFP, discrepancies between Member States application of the rules, complexity of the legislative framework and lack of clarity of some provisions regarding the sanctioning system, availability, quality and sharing of data, the control of small vessels and of the landing obligation, as well as need to improve synergies with other legislations, in particular the IUU regulation, environment law and food law.
Contributions also highlighted issues such as simplification, re gionalisati on, level playing field and the need for cost-effective solutions. Simplification and legal clarification of the current control rules were strongly encouraged by stakeholders, although certain exemptions from the main rules are deemed as sometimes necessary. Regional isation was seen as an im portant concept by some sta keholders, while it was considered as a concept not in line with the spirit and the objectives of a Union control policy by several others. The need to create a level playing field among fishery operators and Member States across the EU was considered critical by all stakeholders. Lastly, stakeholders indicated that, whenever possible, reduction of administrative burden and cost-efficiency should be guiding principles of the revision process.
Regarding the proposed policy options, the vast majority of stakeholders strongly supported or had a preference towards targeted amendment of the Fisheries Control System, including the Fisheries Control Regulation, the IUU Regul ation a nd the EFCA foundi ng Regulation.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/evaluation-fisheries-control-regulation_en
21
Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment provides a summary of the conclusions from all these consultations, while Annex 10 a list of written contributions received from stakeholders. The original written contributions sent by stakeholders and the minutes of the above mentioned workshops and seminars are published on the European Commission website22.
Collection and use of expertise
The legal proposal and the impact assessment are based on a vast body of material and studies, as referenced in Annex 1 of the Impact Assessment23.
External expertise was also used as support for the Impact Assessment for assessing the impacts of the policy options proposed and their comparison. The external study was conducted in autumn 201724 to assess the environmental, economic, social impacts of the policy options, changes in administrative burden, and simplification benefits and to compare the various options in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, with the recommendations of relevant Institutions.
Impact
assessment
Three policy options were analysed through the Impact Assessment process: (1) Baseline, i.e. no policy change but full enforcement of current rules; (2) Option 1: targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control Regulation; (3) Option 2: targeted amendments of the Fisheries Control System (in particular Regulations on: Fisheries Control, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and European Fisheries Control Agency). Option 2 showed markedly better performance overall compared to the other options and was selected as the preferred one.
Positive environmental impacts of the preferred option would encompass: reduction of overfishing, elimination of discards at sea, healthier fish stocks and proper control of marine protected areas. Main socio-economic benefits include: increased wages and competitiveness of fishing industry, especially for the small fleet; promotion of job creation (especially in ICT); improved compliance with the CFP and equal treatment of fishers.
The costs would be ‘proportionate’ to the benefits achieved (especially considering cost savings) and cost-effective, with considerable benefits outweighing the relatively modest changes in costs. Member States authorities would also benefit from cost savings (157 M€ over a five years, compared to the baseline scenario) through simplification and interoperability.
social or environmental impacts are expected as a result of the preferred option.
The impact assessment was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 8 January 2018 for quality review. The Board analysed the draft report and issued a positive Opinion accompanied with its recommendations for improvement on 9 February 201825.
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_en
Available here: ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=ia.
Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_en
The Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board will be published with the impact assessment report and the Commission proposal in the online Register of Commission documents (available here:
ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=ia).
An overview of the Board's recommendations and the changes made compared to the earlier draft is provided in Annex 1 to the Impact Assessment.
Regulatory fitness and simplification
The actions and amendments foreseen under the preferred Option would strongly support the reduction in unnecessary administrative burden for the public authorities and, considering that most of the new costs are associated with ICT development and one-off investments, also in the long term for the whole EU. The preferred Option is expected to simplify and drastically reduce the administrative burden of the current system, with cost savings estimated at 157 M € over 5 years compared to the baseline. It should be noted that while some of the savings could be monetised, some others have been identified but it was not possible to quantify them.
Any additional burden for small operators (small-scale fishermen) will be avoided by the introduction of easy and cost-effective reporting systems for fishery data, taking advantage of affordable and widely available mobile phones technologies. Furthermore, the introduction of new ICT will boost innovation and provide new avenues for job creation for SMEs and starts-up.
Fundamental rights
The proposal has no consequences for the protection of fundamental rights. The proposal clarifies the access to data and the purposes for processing of personal data. Processing of personal data will be performed in way that the obligations on personal data protection laid down in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the regulation replacing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council are respected.
4. BUDGETARYIMPLICATIONS
There is no impact on commitment appropriations since no modification is proposed to the maximum amounts of European Structural and Investment Funds financing provided for in the operational programmes for the programming period 2014-2020.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
The current Fisheries Control Regulation already provides that the Commission shall assess its implementation every 5 years, based on reports submitted by Member States. This rule will be maintained. A detailed explanation of how actual impacts will be monitored and evaluated is provided in section 9 of the impact assessment.
Explanatory documents (for directives) Not applicable.
Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The proposal is structured as follows:
Article 1: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 Article 2: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 Article 3: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006
Article 4: Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008
Article 5: Amendments to Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139
The amendments can be summarized as follows, by main topic, subtopics, Articles concerned and specific provisions of the proposal:
Amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy
Subtopic
Sanctions
Articles
New:
Amended:
Specific provisions of the proposal
Clarification of the inspection process, inspectors' duties, and masters' and operators' duties during inspections.
Digitisation of inspection reports through the mandatory use of an Electronic Inspection Report System which will allow a better use and exchange of data between relevant authorities and Member States.
Clarification on control observers role and duties.
New definitions for the purpose of clarification and improvement of the “enforcement chapter”.
New list of infringements of the CFP rules, which should be qualified as serious by nature (without applying any criteria).
New detailed and exhaustive list of criteria to qualify as serious certain other infringements of the CFP rules. This will favour level playing while ensuring proportionality.
Introduction of mandatory administrative sanctions and minimum levels of fines for serious infringements of CFP rules, in order to render the sanctioning system more deterrent and effective in all Member States and ensure a level playing field.
Clarify immediate enforcement measures (or preventive measures) to be taken by Member States in case of serious infringements.
Clarify that points should be assigned to both the fishing licence holder and the master in the case these entities are different.
Clarify that the proceedings and assignment of points in case of serious infringement can be done by the costal Member State but have to be systematically enforced by the flag Member State.
Clarify that points systematically apply in addition to the main sanction(s) in case of serious infringements (with few derogations when the infringement is not committed by a fishing licence holder or a master, e.g. recreational
fisheries);
to better use and exchange data on
| infringements and sanctions. | ||
| TOPIC 2: DATA AVAILABILITY, QUALITY AND SHARING | ||
| Subtopic | Articles | Specific provisions of the proposal |
| Vessel's tracking | Amended: 4, 9, 10, 12 New: 9a | Flexibility is introduced as regards the specifications of a vessels tracking system (not necessary satellite-based) Clarification is provided as regards the vessel monitoring centres. All vessels including those below 12 metres' length must have a tracking system. Relevant data shall be made available to Agencies engaged in surveillance operations. |
| Logbook | Amended: 14 | The exemption from reporting in logbooks of catches of less than 50 kg is removed for all categories of vessels. The rules for the so-called margin of tolerance are clarified and tailored to specific situations/fisheries. The content of the logbook is aligned to the new provision on traceability (use of the unique fishing trip identifier) and is amended to increase the quality of recorded data. |
| Vessels below 12 metres | Amended: 9, 14, 15 New: 15a | Current derogations are removed and only two categories of fishing vessels are defined: > 12 m and < 12 m. All fishing vessels < 12 m must report their catches electronically. |
| Transhipment declaration and landing declarations | Amended: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Deleted: 16, 25, 28 | All data are recorded in a digital way and submitted electronically. The content of documents is aligned to the new provision on traceability (use of the unique fishing trip identifier) and is amended to increase the quality of recorded data. Current derogations on the landing declaration are removed. Authorisation for transhipments outside EU waters or in port of third countries by the flag Member State is required. |
| Prior notification | Amended: 17, 19 Deleted: 18 New: 19a | Prior notifications are extended to all vessels >12 m and no longer limited to stocks under multiannual plans. Prior notification for Union fishing vessels landing in third country ports is required. |
| Control of recreational fisheries | Amended: 4, 55 | Member States are required to have a system to control participants in recreational fisheries (registration or licensing) and to collect information of catches. For species which are subject to Union conservation measures applicable to recreational fisheries, catch declarations must be sent to the competent authorities and a registration or licensing system for vessels must be set. |
| The prohibition to sell catches is maintained and current derogations in the Mediterranean are removed (see amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006). Conditions are set to lay down specific provisions on the control and marking of fishing gears applicable to recreational fisheries, on the vessel's tracking, on registration or licencing systems and on catch recording. Recreational fisheries activities organised by commercial enterprises are covered. | ||
| Traceability | Amended: 4, 56, 57, 58 New: 56a | The provisions on traceability are clarified and a new Article on lots is introduced. The traceability information is clarified, so that it allows linking a specific lot of fishery products to a particular landing by an EU fishing vessel. Information is recorded electronically so that controls in the supply chain within the internal market are more effective and efficient. The derogation for imported products is removed. The scope of application of the traceability provision is limited to certain fishery and aquaculture products). The derogation for products sold to consumers is aligned to other provisions in the Regulation (maximum of 5 kg of fishery products per day instead of 50 euros). |
| Weighing, transport and sales procedures and data | Amended: 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68 New: 59a, 60a Deleted: 61, 63, 67 | The current exemptions that undermine the accurate weighing and registration of landed fish are streamlined. A simple and effective system to guarantee accurate weighing at landing is established through the weighing performed by a registered operator. Targeted procedures are established for unsorted landings. The current derogations for quantities sold/dispensed for private consumption, to non-registered buyers, are amended and aligned to the provisions on control in the supply chain. The responsibilities and accountability of operators in the supply chain are clarified. Requirements to record in a digital way and submit electronically sales notes, take-over notes and transport documents are introduced. The reporting from operators to competent authorities (flag state, state of landing, state of sale) is simplified. |
| Data availability and exchange | Amended: 33, 34, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114 and 115 | The digitisation of the data system is completed, and availability, reliability and exchange of data are overall enhanced. The provisions on the recoding of data by Member States and the submission of data to the Commission are streamlined and aligned to other amendments. |
| New:111a; 112a Deleted: 116 | The amendments clarify the data collected by Member States, the validation steps and the access by Commission to the data collected and its purpose. The amendments also clarify the measures for protection of personal data and the security of the processing. The Article on the secure part of the website is deleted. | |
| TOPIC 3: BRIDGING THE GAPS WITH THE CFP | ||
| Subtopic | Articles | Specific provisions of the proposal |
| Definition of ‘rules of the common fisheries policy’ | Amended: 4 | The definition of ‘rules of the common fisheries policy’ is clarified and aligned with the CFP. |
| Fishing licence and fishing authorisation | Amended: 6, 7 | The provisions are aligned to the CFP. |
| Landing obligation | New: 25a | The amendments mandate the use of remote electronic monitoring tools, in particular CCTVs, for the control of the landing obligation. The new provisions will affect individual vessels and fleet segments according to risk assessment, and shall be implemented by Member States at regional level. |
| Fishing capacity | New: 39a Amended: 38, 41 | A new Article is introduced requiring that certain vessels with active fishing gears are fitted with a device that monitors and records engine power. The current provisions on the verification of engine power are simplified. Provisions are introduced on the physical verification of the tonnage of fishing vessels. |
| National control programmes and annual reports | Deleted: 46, Annex 1 Amended: 55 New: 93a | National control programmes are extended to cover the control of rules of the CFP and not only the control of multiannual programmes. The Annex 1 on inspection benchmarks for multiannual plans is consequently deleted. National control programmes shall also include the control of recreational fisheries. Yearly reports on national inspections and controls are required. |
The reporting of lost fishing gear is eased and improved, through the use of logbooks (electronic) for all categories of vessels.
The current derogation applicable to vessels < 12m to carry on board the necessary equipment for the retrieval of lost gear is removed.
Conditions are set to lay down Union provisions on the marking and control of fishing gears for recreational fisheries.
definition
'fishing
restricted
areas'
and the
of
areas
provisions of Article 50 are amended to take into account fishing restricted areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of a Member States as well as outside EU waters.
Alignment with the Lisbon Treaty
Numerous
Articles
amended
or
introduced
The powers conferred to the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 are aligned with Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Also provisions conferring decision-making powers upon Council alone are adapted to bring them into line with the new procedures applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy.
| Amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 establishing a European Fisheries Control Agency | ||
| Topic | Articles | Specific provisions of the proposal |
| Alignment to CFP | Amended: 2 and 3 Amended: 17 | The Agency's objective and missions are fully aligned to the new CFP. The geographical scope of the Agency's inspection powers is no longer limited to international waters. |
| Exchange of data | Amended: 16 | The amendments clarify rules on exchange and processing of information and the measures for protection of personal data. |
| Alignment to Common approach on EU decentralised Agencies | Amended: 26, 29, 39 | A number of amendments are introduced to better align the EFCA's founding Regulation to the Common Approach. |
| Budget | Amended: 35 | The possibilities for revenues are extended to allow delegation agreements and ad-hoc grants, in line with similar provisions in place for other Agencies (e.g. Frontex). |
| Amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing | ||
| Topic | Articles | Specific provisions of the proposal |
| Digitalisation of IUU catch certificate (CATCH) | New: 12a to 12e | The Catch Certification Scheme, as set out in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, is paper-based and as a result not efficient. The amendments to the Union Catch Certification Scheme provide for with the establishment of a data base for the management of catch certificates (CATCH) based on the Information Management System for Official Controls, allowing for risk based controls, |
reducing opportunities of fraudulent imports and easing the administrative burden of Member States.
The operational functions of the CATCH will be developed in different phases. Implementing and delegated powers are conferred on the Commission relating to the functioning and further development of the CATCH.
| Inspections | Amended: |
| 10 | |
| Fishing vessel | Amended: |
| engaged in IUU | 2, 3, 11 |
| fishing | |
| Proceedings and | New: 42a, |
| enforcement | Amended: |
| measures | 27, 42, 43 |
| (including serious | Deleted: |
| infringements) | 44 to 47 |
Alignment with the new provisions in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.
Alignment with the new provisions in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and relevant cross references.
Cross references are introduced to ensure alignment with the new provisions on proceedings and enforcement including sanctions in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Articles becoming obsolete are deleted.
| Amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks | ||
| Topic | Articles | Specific provisions of the proposal |
| Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 | Amended: 17 Deleted: 21, 23 | In order to ensure compatibility with Regulation 1224/2009, some provisions on leisure fisheries and the provisions on transhipment are deleted. |
| Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 | Deleted: 12, 13 | In order to ensure compatibility with Regulation 1224/2009 provisions on logbooks and on the margin of tolerance are deleted |