Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/10
of 5 January 2017
amending Implementing Decision 2013/328/EU and Implementing Decision 2012/807/EU establishing specific control and inspection programmes for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Union waters of the North Sea and in the Union waters of ICES Division IIa
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
In addition to the fisheries of sole, plaice and cod in the North Sea covered by Implementing Decision 2013/328/EU, which should continue to be covered by a specific control and inspection programme, the fisheries defined in the annex to the discard plans referred to in Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2440 should also be included in the specific control and inspection programme in order to enable Member States concerned to undertake efficiently and effectively joint inspection and surveillance activities.
On the basis of the results of the Member States' risk assessment carried out in respect of each of the fisheries covered by the discard plans, the overall inspection benchmarks laid down by the present specific control and inspection programme have to be implemented by the Member States.
In order to take into account the regional specificities and the need to harmonise and increase the effectiveness of the control and inspection procedures, the present specific control and inspection programme covers the Union Waters of the North Sea as defined in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (ICES zone IIIa, i.e. including the Kattegat and the Skagerrak and ICES zone IV), as well as Union waters of ICES Division IIa.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1Amendments to Implementing Decision 2013/328/EU
Implementing Decision 2013/328/EU is amended as follows:
- (1)
The title is replaced by the following:
‘Commission Implementing Decision of 25 June 2013 establishing a specific control and inspection programme for certain demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Union waters of the North Sea and in the Union waters of ICES Division IIa’.
- (2)
Article 1 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 1Subject matter
This Decision establishes a single specific control and inspection programme applicable to the fisheries exploiting cod, sole, plaice in the Union waters of ICES zones IIIa and IV, and certain fisheries exploiting mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, argentine, sprat; sand eel, and Norway pout; cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, Norway lobster, common sole, plaice, hake, Northern prawn, in the Union waters of ICES zones IIIa and IV and in the Union waters of ICES Division IIa (“Areas concerned”)’.
- (3)
In Article 2, the following paragraph 1a is inserted:
‘1a.
The specific control and inspection programme shall apply to:
(a)
the fisheries defined in the Annex to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/20149;(b)
the fisheries defined in the Annex to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/244010;(c)
the stocks covered by Regulations (EC) No 1342/2008 and (EC) No 676/2007.’
- (4)
Article 3 is amended as follows:
- (a)
paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
‘1.
The specific control and inspection programme shall ensure the uniform and effective implementation of conservation and control measures applicable to the fisheries and stocks referred to in Article 2(1a)’;
- (b)
in paragraph 2, point (c) is replaced by the following:
- (a)
- (5)
In Article 4, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2.
Each fishing vessel, group of fishing vessels, fishing gear category, operator, and/or fishing-related activity, for each fishery and stocks referred to in Article 2(1a), shall be subject to control and inspection according to the level of priority attributed pursuant to paragraph 3.’
- (6)
Article 5 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 5Procedures for risk assessment
1.
Member States concerned shall assess risks with regard to the stocks and area(s) listed in Article 1 according to the methodology established in cooperation with the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA).
2.
The risk assessment methodology referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide that the Member State concerned:
(a)
considers, on the basis of past experience and using all available and relevant information, how likely a non-compliance is to happen and, if it were to happen, the potential consequence(s);
(b)
establishes the level of risk — by fisheries and stocks, area covered, time of the year — based on occurrence (frequent, medium, seldom, not) and potential consequences (serious, significant, acceptable or marginal). The estimated risk level shall be expressed as “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” or “very high”.
3.
Member States concerned shall establish and regularly update a list of their vessels indicating, at least the high and very high risk vessels. The up-to date list of vessels graded by risks shall be used during the relevant joint deployment plan campaigns.
4.
In cases where a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State which is not a Member State concerned, or a third country fishing vessel, operates in the area(s) referred to in Article 1, it shall be attributed a level of risk in accordance with paragraph 2. In the absence of information and unless its flag authorities provide, in the framework of Article 9, the results of their own risk assessment performed according to Article 4(2) and to paragraph 3 leading to a different risk level, it shall be considered as a “very high” risk level fishing vessel.’
- (7)
Article 7(1) is replaced by the following:
‘1.
In the framework of a joint deployment plan, where applicable, each Member State concerned shall communicate to the EFCA the results of its risk assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5(2) and, in particular, a list of estimated levels of risk with corresponding targets for inspection.’
- (8)
Article 8 is amended as follows:
- (a)
paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
‘1.
Without prejudice to target benchmarks defined in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and in Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/200813, for the stocks referred to in Article 2(1a)(c), the target benchmarks defined in Annex II shall apply for “high” and “very high” risk level fishing vessels and/or other operators.’; - (b)
paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2.
For the fisheries referred to in Article 2(1a)(a) and (b), the target benchmarks defined in Annex II shall apply for “high” and “very high” risk level fishing vessels and/or other operators.’
- (a)
- (9)
Annex I is deleted.
- (10)
Annex II is replaced by the text in Annex I to this Decision.
- (11)
Annex IV is replaced by the text in Annex II to this Decision.
Article 2Amendments to Implementing Decision 2012/807/EU
Implementing Decision 2012/807/EU is amended as follows:
- (1)
The title is replaced by the following:
‘Commission Implementing Decision of 19 December 2012 establishing a specific control and inspection programme for pelagic fisheries in western waters of the north-east Atlantic’.
- (2)
Article 1 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 1Subject matter
This Decision establishes a specific control and inspection programme applicable to the stocks of mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardine and sprat in EU waters of ICES sub-areas V, VI, VII, VIII and IX and in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.11 (hereafter referred to as “Western Waters”).’
- (3)
In Article 3(2), point (b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
reporting obligations applicable to fishing activities in Western Waters, in particular the reliability of the information recorded and reported;’
- (4)
Article 5 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 5Procedures for risk assessment
1.
Member States concerned shall assess risks with regard to the stocks and area(s) listed in Article 1 according to the methodology established in cooperation with the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA).
2.
The risk assessment methodology referred to in paragraph 1 shall provide that the Member State concerned:
(a)
considers, on the basis of past experience and using all available and relevant information, how likely a non-compliance is to happen and, if it were to happen, the potential consequence(s);
(b)
establishes the level of risk — by fisheries and stocks, area covered, time of the year — based on occurrence (frequent, medium, seldom, not) and potential consequences (serious, significant, acceptable or marginal). The estimated risk level shall be expressed as “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high” or “very high”.
3.
Member States concerned shall establish and regularly update a list of their vessels indicating, at least the high and very high risk vessels. The up-to date list of vessels graded by risks shall be used during the relevant joint deployment plan campaigns.
4.
In cases where a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State which is not a Member State concerned, or a third country fishing vessel, operates in the area(s) referred to in Article 1, it shall be attributed a level of risk in accordance with paragraph 2. In the absence of information and unless its flag authorities provide, in the framework of Article 9, the results of their own risk assessment performed according to Article 4(2) and to paragraph 3 leading to a different risk level, it shall be considered as a “very high” risk level fishing vessel.’
- (5)
Article 7(1) is replaced by the following:
‘1.
In the framework of a joint deployment plan, where applicable, each Member State concerned shall communicate to the EFCA the results of its risk assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5(2) and, in particular, a list of estimated levels of risk with corresponding targets for inspection.’
Article 3Entry into force
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2017.
Done at Brussels, 5 January 2017.
For the Commission
The President
Jean-Claude Juncker
ANNEX I
‘ANNEX II
TARGET BENCHMARKS FOR DEMERSAL SPECIES
1.Level of inspections at sea (including aerial surveillance, where applicable)
On a yearly basis, the following target benchmarks14 shall be reached for the inspections at sea of fishing vessels engaged in the fisheries and stocks referred to in Article 2(1a)(b) and (c), in the case that inspections at sea are relevant in relation to the step in the fishery chain and are part of the risk management strategy:
Benchmarks per year15Level of estimated risk for fishing vessels in accordance with Article 5(2)
High
very high
Fishery
Inspection at sea of at least 2,5 % of fishing trips by “high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Inspection at sea of at least 5 % of fishing trips by “very high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
2.Level of inspections on land (including document-based controls and inspections in ports or at first sale)
On a yearly basis, the following target benchmarks16 shall be reached for the inspections on land (including document-based controls and inspections in ports or at first sale) of fishing vessels and other operators engaged in the fisheries and stocks referred to in Article 2(1a)(b) and (c), in the case that inspections on land are relevant in relation to the step in the fishery/marketing chain and are part of the risk management strategy.
Benchmarks per year17Level of risk for fishing vessels and/or other operators (first buyer)
high
very high
Fishery
Inspection in port of at least 10 % of overall landed quantities by “high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspection in port of at least 15 % of overall landed quantities by “very high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspections made after landing or transhipment shall in particular be used as a complementary cross-checking mechanism to verify the reliability of the information recorded and reported on catches and landings.
TARGET BENCHMARKS FOR PELAGIC SPECIES
1.Level of inspections at sea (including aerial surveillance, where applicable)
On a yearly basis, the following target benchmarks18 shall be reached for the inspections at sea of fishing vessels engaged in the fishery of herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, Norway pout, sprat, sand eel in the fisheries, referred to in Article 2(1a)(a), in the case that inspections at sea are relevant in relation to the step in the fishery chain and are part of the risk management strategy:
Benchmarks per year19Level of estimated risk for fishing vessels in accordance with Article 5(2)
high
very high
Herring, mackerel and horse mackerel
Inspection at sea of at least 5 % of fishing trips by “high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Inspection at sea of at least 7,5 % of fishing trips by “very high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Norway pout, sprat and sand eel
Inspection at sea of at least 2,5 % of fishing trips by “high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Inspection at sea of at least 5 % of fishing trips by “very high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Blue whiting
Inspection at sea of at least 5 % of fishing trips by “high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
Inspection at sea of at least 7,5 % of fishing trips by “very high risk” level fishing vessels targeting the fishery in question
2.Level of inspections on land (including document-based controls and inspections in ports or at first sale)
On a yearly basis, the following target benchmarks20 shall be reached for the inspections on land (including document-based controls and inspections in ports or at first sale) of fishing vessels and other operators engaged in the fishery of herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, Norway pout, sprat, sand eel in the fisheries, referred to in Article 2(1a)(a), in the case that inspections on land are relevant in relation to the step in the fishery/marketing chain and are part of the risk management strategy.
Benchmarks per year21Level of risk for fishing vessels and/or other operators (first buyer)
high
very high
Herring, mackerel and horse mackerel
Inspection in port of at least 5 % of overall landed quantities by “high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspection in port of at least 7,5 % of overall landed quantities by “very high risk” level fishing vessels
Norway pout, sprat and sand eel
Inspection in port of at least 2,5 % of overall landed quantities by “high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspection in port of at least 5 % of overall landed quantities by “very high risk” level fishing vessels
Blue whiting
Inspection in port of at least 5 % of overall landed quantities by “high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspection in port of at least 7,5 % of overall landed quantities by “very high risk” level fishing vessels
Inspections made after landing or transhipment shall in particular be used as a complementary cross-checking mechanism to verify the reliability of the information recorded and reported on catches and landings.’
ANNEX II
‘ANNEX IVCONTENT OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
I.Data on the control, inspection and enforcement activities carried out by [Member State concerned] at sea and on land
Table 1Analysis of inspection activities at sea
Patrol days
No of inspections (total/very high/high risk)
No of confirmed serious infringements detected (total/very high/high risk)
Serious infringement rate average (confirmed infringements/inspections)
Serious infringement rate on low and medium risk vessels (infringements/inspections)
Serious infringement rate on high and very high risk vessels (infringements/inspections)
Provided
Committed
30 (*)
30
100/70/30
4/3/1
4:100 = 4 %
3:70 = 4,3 %
1/30 = 3,3 %
Table 2Analysis of inspection activities on land
Inspection men/days on land
No of inspections (total/very high/high risk)
No of confirmed serious infringements detected (total/very high/high risk)
Serious infringement rate average (confirmed infringements/inspections)
Serious infringement rate on low and medium risk vessels (infringements/inspections)
Serious infringement rate on high and very high risk vessels (infringements/inspections)
Provided
Committed
20022200
400/350/50
40/30/10
40:400 = 10 %
30:350 = 8,6 %
10:50 = 20 %
II.Analysis of target benchmarks expressed in terms of improved compliance levels
If the Member State applies alternative target benchmarks, referred to in Article 8(3) of this Decision, the following information shall be reported:
Table 3Achievement of improved compliance levels.
Description of the activity threat/risk/vessel segment
Very high risk/high risk/medium risk/low risk/very low risk
Level of the threat/risk at the beginning of the year, expressed in compliance level
Target improvement of the compliance level
Level of the threat/risk at the end of the year, expressed in compliance level
No of inspections
No of serious infringements detected
ex post analysis, explanation in case the target compliance level has not been reached
III.Analysis of other inspection and control activities: transhipment, aerial surveillance, importation/exportation, as well as other actions such as training or information sessions designed to have an impact on compliance by fishing vessels and other operators
IV.Proposal(s) for improving effectiveness of control, inspection and enforcement activities (for each Member State concerned)’