DK-E A EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES MISSION REPORT. Denmark. Dates: from 10/03/15 to 11/03/15

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2016) /04/2016 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES MISSION REPORT DK-E A Denmark Dates: from 10/03/15 to 11/03/15 Verification mission to follow up the MARE letter of formal notice No 2014/2137 related to the control of pelagic fisheries 1

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DG verification programme title Follow-up of the MARE vs DK case No 2014/2137 Type of mission Places visited Announced Copenhagen, Strandby, Skagen Commission officials Ms Liana Bratusca (Unit F4), Mr Maris Stulgis (Unit E2) Related Commission infringement procedures MARE letter of formal notice No 2014/2137 related to the control of pelagic fisheries 1. MISSION BACKGROUND The main objective of the mission was to follow up the Commission's letter of formal notice in the infringement case No 2014/2137 related to the control of unsorted pelagic catches landed for industrial purposes (e.g. fishmeal) and to clarify the DK reply to that letter. 2. MAIN FINDINGS The mission focused on issues listed in the letter of formal notice, in particular, the incorrect catch recording by species into the logbook (Art. 14(1)), inaccurate estimation of the catch quantities within the allowed margin of tolerance (10%) (Art. 14(3) and consequent MS responsibility to put in place necessary measures and structures to ensure the application of EU rules (Art. 5(3)) and to take systematic enforcement measures against breaches of such rules (Art. 89(1)). The impact of these shortcomings on the reliability of quota uptake monitoring was also considered in light of Art. 33 of the CR. 1) DK requires currently masters to estimate catch composition in the LB by species. Recent data samples show that situation is improving and the catch composition in logbooks collected from industrial fishing vessels reflects more than one species. 2) DK educates fishermen and involves them into trials to correctly estimate catch composition in small mesh size fishery by species in logbooks. 3) The trial showed that the master's estimation is quite accurate for amounts of species exceeding 10% from total catch amount. DK masters also confirmed, that sampling at sea was done without substantial additional efforts. Trials also indicated that it was difficult for fishermen to estimate within the 10% margin of tolerance the by-catch species appearing in small amounts in the unsorted catch. 4) Current quota uptake monitoring is not based on aggregated data for all landings as reported mainly in logbooks (LB), landing declarations (LD) or sales notes (SN), as required by Art. 33 of the CR. DK bases it on data from inspectors' samples taken from around % landings which it extrapolates to all landings according to a calculation developed by a scientific institute. 5) Furthermore, SN do not reflect the real catch composition, but in most cases contain only the target species (no by-catch species appear in the SN) 2

3 6) Given the above alternative system of quota uptake monitoring, DK does not take into account LB and/or LD and SN data and thus is not making any cross-checks between these as required by Art. 109 of the CR 7) DK presented 21 cases in which it applied sanctions and points for, inter alia, incorrect recording of the catch composition in the LB. However, infringements of the catch composition are not sanctioned unless there is another infringement detected for the same fishing trip. 8) The deterrence of the sanctions applied for incorrect catch recording by species is questionable, as (1) out of 16 vessels sanctioned 5 committed repeatedly a 2nd infringement within a 6 months period, (2) While the sanction ''Suspension of licence for 30 days'' is applied in most cases, it appears that this refers only to the fishing authorisation for industrial fishing as the vessels may continue fishing for other stocks and (3) the sanction for incorrect catch reporting is only applied when there is other additional infringement detected for the vessel. DK current system for quotas consumption monitoring is completely independent from the catch data reported via LB, LN and SN and is based on extrapolations from the sampled landings (representing 10-20% of total landings).while the inaccurate recording of catches throughout the catch registration chain (inaccurate LB, SN and missing LD, SN data) does not seem to have a direct impact on the monitoring of the quota uptake given this alternative system of quota monitoring DK has put in place, the legality of this system is highly questionable in light of Article 33 of CR. Moreover, the statistical reliability of the alternative system may be challenged e.g. the relative small quantities used for sampling, the questionable representativeness of samples for vessels straddling several rectangles and for vessels fishing in rectangles where no samples were taken, etc. 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MISSION BACKGROUND MAIN FINDINGS MISSION CHARACTERISTICS Introduction Objectives Scope Legal references MISSION FINDINGS Recording of catches by master in the logbook and margin of tolerance Measures and structures (article 5(3) of the CR) and enforcement by national authorities (article 89(1) of the CR) PRELIMINARY SUMMARY FINDINGS PRESENTED DURING THE DEBRIEFING AND POSITION OF THE MS POST MISSION INFORMATION AND DATA ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND POST- MISSION ANALYSIS OFFICIAL RESPONSE BY MEMBER STATE ANNEXES Annex 1. List of places, authorities/stakeholders visited and national officials met Annex No 2. Acronyms and abbreviations used in the report Annex No 3. Pre-audit questionnaire Annex 4. DK methodology to calculate by-catches in the fishery for reduction

5 3. MISSION CHARACTERISTICS 3.1. Introduction A letter of formal notice was sent to DK as a follow up of several inspection missions and an EU Pilot case, which was closed without achieving a satisfactory result. The main issues not addressed by DK before launching the formal infringement case are the incorrect recording of industrial pelagic catches by species into the logbook (art 14(1)), the inaccurate estimation of quantities of each species within the allowed margin of tolerance (10%) (article 14(3) and consequent MS responsibility to put in place necessary measures and structures to ensure the application of EU rules (Art. 5(3)) and to take systematic enforcement measures against breaches of such rules (Art. 89(1)). The mission was organised to clarify aspects of the DK reply to the Commission's letter of formal notice Objectives The main objective of the mission was to follow up on the Commission's letter of formal notice in infringement case No 2014/2137 related to the control by DK of unsorted pelagic catches landed for industrial purposes (e.g. fishmeal) and to clarify relevant aspects of the DK reply to that letter Scope The legal and administrative scope of the mission was the same as for the infringement case No 2014/2137 i.e. the control and enforcement of the logbook obligations and the related aspects of the quota uptake monitoring in DK industrial fisheries. 1? The geographical scope covered a meeting in the Danish AgriFish Agency in Copenhagen, visit and meetings with regional inspectors and fishermen in Frederikshamn and Strandby as well as observation of landing facilities of industrial pelagic catches in Skagen (please refer to Annex No 1 for the list of participants.) 3.4. Legal references The verification was carried out under the general provisions of the EU legislation, and in particular the Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. 4. MISSION FINDINGS The pre-mission questionnaire was filled in and sent by Denmark to the Commission in due time and clarified a number of aspects related to the mission's objectives (see Annex No 3.). During the mission the following matters were further clarified. 1 During the mission, DK authorities questioned the mandate of the Commission officials to investigate on issues linked to the Danish quota uptake monitoring as Article 33 was not explicitly mentioned as a legal base of the infringement proceedings. Commission officials explained that in their view, this issue is intrinsically linked with the subject matter of the infringement case and was mentioned clearly in the letter of formal notice. Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings it is still possible to extend the scope of the infringement case. 5

6 4.1. Recording of catches by master in the logbook and margin of tolerance 1) Recent data samples provided by DK showed certain improvement in registration of catch composition by species in LB (recording only the target species was the key problem before. Denmark emphasised that it officially requires masters to estimate catch composition in the LB by species. 2) DK educates fishermen and involves them into trials to correctly estimate catch composition in small mesh size fishery by species in LB (18 vessels took part in recent trial). 3) The above trial demonstrated that the master's estimation done via sampling is close to the results of sampling done by inspectors for amounts of species exceeding 10% of the total catch amount. DK masters also confirmed that sampling at sea was done without substantial additional efforts and every consecutive sampling was faster than the previous. 4) The trial results also showed that there it was difficult for fishermen to estimate within the 10% margin of tolerance the quantities of by-catch species appearing in small amounts in the unsorted catch. 5) Small by-catch amounts are not on all occasions detected by inspector's sampling. As evidenced by datasets provided by DK, small amounts of cod by-catch (up to 100kg) were estimated and recorded in logbook by fishermen, but do not appear in sampling results of inspectors. 6) 27 sampling sheets provided by DK evidenced that average size of a sample was 29 kg and on all occasions was smaller than ''full control sample'' (above 100 kg) having a legal value in court proceedings, if the case may be. DK authorities indicted that there are no minimum requirements applicable for the quantities of each sample or for the number and frequency of samples used to calculate the standard catch composition for unsorted industrial landings. 7) DK explained its established processes for recording and reporting catch data and their consequent use for quota uptake monitoring, as provided in Picture No 1 below. 6

7 Picture No 1 DNK industrial catch data flow, explained by DK Logbook Landing declaration Sampling - inspectors SPR, t HER, t } LB WHG, t and LD data are not used for quota uptake monitoring 5 Agrifish statistical unit FIDES Sales notes 100 DK Quota deduction Sampling of around 10% of landings is interpolated to all industrial catches (including - to 90% of non-sampled catches) Deduction of 80t SPR from national quota ( =80t) Deduction of 15t HER and 5t WHG from national or by-catch quota 20t SPR is put into national pool for later use as vessel quota (for all vessels with SPR quota) Deduction of 100t from vessel quota Picture above clarified: (a) (b) (c) DK quotas of pelagic species are split into vessel quotas for target species (e.g. SPR in the Baltic Sea) and national by-catch quotas (by-catch species e.g. HER in the Baltic sea). The monitoring and reporting to the Commission (FIDES) of industrial pelagic catches by species is based on inspection sampling results and is performed by DK authorities according to the monitoring program established by DK scientists and implemented by the Statistical unit of the Danish Agrifish Agency (Annex No 4). Quota deduction from available national TACs is performed as follows: The total amount of catch reported in the LB is deducted from the vessel's quota as target specie (e.g. 100t of SPR in the example above) A standard catch composition established and regularly updated according to inspectors sampling results is used to deduct the relevant target species (e.g. 80t of SPR) and by-catch amounts from the national quota in the relevant stock area (e.g. 15t HER and 5t WHG in the example above). This data is submitted by DK to FIDES. The difference between 80t of SPR reported to FIDES and 100t deducted from the vessel quota goes to a national pool and is later redistributed back to vessels concerned according to their individual shares. 7

8 (d) Consequently, DK does not use LB, LD and SN data for quota uptake monitoring and does not cross-check these documents in order to validate aggregated catch figures to be monthly submitted to the Commission. 8) According to DK explanations on the sampling methodology submitted prior to the mission (Annex No 4) if a sample is not available for a whole area, no by-catch is allocated to the landing of catches from that area. 9) The method explained by DK during the mission (Picture No 1) seems to differ from the explanations submitted before the mission (Annex No 4). In particular, during the mission DK explained that quota uptake monitoring of unsorted catches used for non-human consumption is based exclusively on the inspectors sampling figures and that LB and SN are not used as data source to establish catch amounts, while Annex No 4 indicates that LB and SN data are used to determine quantities and SN data are used for quota monitoring. Annex No 4 explains that species distribution is based on ICES rectangles, while answer to question 6 of the questionnaire (see Annex No 3 below) says that samples are not taken according to ICES rectangles Measures and structures (article 5(3) of the CR) and enforcement by national authorities (article 89(1) of the CR) 1) DK presented 21 cases in which it applied sanctions and points for, inter alia, incorrect recording of the catch composition in the LB. 2) The deterrence of sanctions applied is, however, questionable as (a) (b) (c) out of 16 vessels sanctioned 5 committed repeatedly a 2nd infringement within a short (6 months) period; While the sanction ''Suspension of licence for 30 days'' is applied in most those cases, it appears that this refers only to the fishing authorisation for industrial fishing as vessels may continue to fish for other stocks; A sanction for incorrect catch reporting is only applied, when there is other additional infringement detected for the vessel. 3) DK authorities are not convinced of the need to enforce EU applicable rules on logbooks in industrial fisheries as (a) (b) The catch quantities reported in LB, LD and SN do not serve for the purpose of quota monitoring in view of the alternative sample-based system in place which is considered a much better system than the one set by the Control Regulation DK considers it impossible for fishermen to respect these rules, thus the enforcement measures based on such rules as unfair.. 8

9 5. PRELIMINARY SUMMARY FINDINGS PRESENTED DURING THE DEBRIEFING AND POSITION OF THE MS. EU officials explained that mission helped to clarify many aspects of the DK reply to the letter of formal notice in infringement case no 2014/2137. Commission services also obtained a good overview of DK national quota management of unsorted pelagic catches, and the control (including sampling by inspectors) program used by DK in connection with these fisheries. The Commission officials also explained possible legal options on the follow-up of the infringement case making it clear that this is without prejudice to the Commission's future decisions in this case. DK questioned COM mandate for the mission to examine the reliability of Danish quota management system. As LB are not used for quota monitoring, DK did not consider these two subjects interlinked. 6. POST MISSION INFORMATION AND DATA ANALYSIS 1) Data set of 105 fishing trips, containing LB, LD, SN and inspector sampling results provided by DK, evidence, that: (a) (b) (c) (d) LD are not submitted to the authorities, as foreseen in articles 23 and 24 of the CR. Out of 105 fishing trips in the dataset, only for 23 landings the LD was available. Out of 105 landings, 5 SN were not available and 53 SN did not accurately reflect the catch composition by species (article 64(1)(e) of the CR) landed and estimated in logbook, those SN contained only target specie (SPR). Out of 105 landings, in 20 cases both LB and SN contained only the target species. Only in 8 cases, both LB and SN contained the catch composition by species. DK current system for the monitoring of the quotas uptake is completely independent from the catch data reported via LB, LN and SN and is based on extrapolations from the sampled landings (representing 10-20% of total landings). While the inaccurate recording of catches throughout the catch registration chain (inaccurate LB and SN data and missing LD and SN data) does not have a direct impact on the monitoring of the quota uptake, it is clear that the sample-based alternative system of DK seems to deviate from the legal requirements of Art. 33 CR imposing an obligation on MS to monitor the quota uptake on the basis of precise landing quantities as recorded mainly in LB, LD and SN. Moreover, the reliability of the alternative system DK can also be questioned due to the following reasons: (1) the relatively small size of samples used for sampling (average size 29kg) (2) the questionable representativeness of samples for vessels straddling several rectangles and for vessels fishing in rectangles where no samples were taken (3) When evaluating the DK alternative system against the established FAO sampling methodology (FAO Technical Paper 454) one must notice the following: 9

10 (a) (b) Accuracy level of vessel catch composition. A number of samples are taken from a given vessel to establish the catch composition, but because no figures have been supplied on the degree of variability between samples it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of the resulting estimates. Information should be sought from Denmark on how both the number of samples and the individual sample sizes are decided, and how these relate to the confidence interval around the resulting catch composition estimates. Accuracy level of the quota consumption estimates. With estimates of the confidence intervals around the estimated catch compositions by vessel, it would be possible to estimate the accuracy of the total catch estimates for the fleet, and hence the rate of quota consumption. The sampling intensity needed is therefore dependent on the level of accuracy that is required of the final catch estimates. This could be different for different species. For example, a given level of accuracy for the main target species would require less intense sampling than for relatively scarce by-catch species. One possibility is to specify a minimum level of precision for each of the 2 or 3 main species in the catch. 7. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND POST-MISSION ANALYSIS (1) DK achieved certain progress in ensuring that masters register unsorted pelagic catches by species into the logbook according to article 14(1) of the CR; however, issues still exist as illustrated below: (a) (b) Around 35% of logbooks (in a sample of 105 fishing trips) contain only the target species SPR, while DK earlier indicated (in reply to mission report DK-E A) that herring by-catches are always present in the unsorted sprat fishery. This indicates that 35% of logbooks do not contain correct catch composition. Masters are aware that DK authorities do not use LB and LD data (for quota uptake monitoring) and do not enforce the logbook rules, unless another infringement is detected, which substantially reduces the incentive to accurately estimate catch composition by species. (2) Infringements of the obligation to report the catches of each species above 50 kg in the LB are only followed-up if another infringement is detected for the same fishing trip. (3) The sanctions applied for incorrect catch recording in LB by species do not appear to be deterrent enough as sanctions consist, in the majority of cases, of a 30-days suspension of the fishing authorisation for industrial fisheries, but the vessels may engage in fishing for other species. Moreover, sanctions do not seem to effectively discourage further offences of the same kind, as foreseen in article 89 of the CR. (4) The inaccurate recording of fishing activity data (LB, LD, SN) and missing data (LD and SN) may lead to a gap in the catch registration chain imposed 10

11 by the CR and does not allow to cross-check and validate data as foreseen in article 109 of the CR. (5) The trial conducted by DK involving 18 vessels active in the industrial fisheries indicated that accurate recording by master of small by-catch amounts (e.g. below 100 kg) in large catches (e.g. above 100 t) was difficult, while by-catch quantities above 10% from total catch amount appeared to be estimated within 10% margin of tolerance (article 14(1) of the CR) without difficulties. (6) The sampling-based quota monitoring methodology may have the advantage of reducing the impact of the inaccurate catch reporting by fisherman in the unsorted industrial fishery, but the legality of this method and even its reliability is highly questionable. 8. OFFICIAL RESPONSE BY MEMBER STATE Ref. Ares(2015) /05/2015 Annex: The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on: Mission report: DK-E A. Verification mission to follow up the MARE letter of formal notice No 2014/2137 related to the control of pelagic fisheries The Danish AgriFish Agency would first like to note that the report was received by on 10 April The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 2. Main findings : It is stated in the report under (4) that the current system for quota calculation is not based on logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point 4.1. It is stated under (5) that sales notes do not reflect the real catch composition, but only the main species. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point 7(1). It is stated under (6) that Denmark, on the basis of the alternative system, does not carry out cross-checks of data from logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point 7(4). It is stated under (7) that infringements concerning the catch composition in logbooks are not sanctioned unless other infringements are detected at the same time. The Danish AgriFish Agency is able to inform you that failure to keep a logbook or incorrect logbook keeping is sanctioned regardless of other infringements if sufficient evidence is available. See also point 4.2. It is stated under (8) that the deterrent effect of sanctions is inadequate, as five out of 16 vessels committed a similar infringement within six months. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point 4.2. It is also stated under (8) that the Danish quota consumption system is completely independent of data from logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point

12 The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 3. Mission Characteristics : Point 3.3 It is stated in the report that the background to the mission was based on infringement case No 2014/2137 and that the Danish authorities questioned the EU inspectors mandate, as Article 33 concerning the recording of quota consumption was not explicitly mentioned as a legal basis in the infringement case. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to clarify that it is not a matter of Denmark questioning the Commission s mandate. The Danish AgriFish Agency considers it natural that Denmark wants to have all the legal aspects of the mission clarified, because it is regarded as very serious that the Commission believes that Denmark has infringed EU legislation. The Danish AgriFish Agency would therefore like to clearly understand the procedure of a mission related to an infringement case, and therefore wished to have this clarified by the EU inspectors. It is the understanding of the Danish AgriFish Agency that the infringement case against Denmark (2014/2137) relates to Article 14 concerning records in logbooks. The Danish AgriFish Agency s comment is supported by the fact that Article 33 was mentioned in the preliminary letter of formal notice from the Commission, but removed from this because the Commission considered the requirements of the Article to have been met. It should also be clarified that the Danish comments to the EU inspectors had no bearing on the documents that have been provided or the questions that have been answered. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to be completely open about the methods used in Denmark, which is also reflected in Denmark s reply to Commission case No 2014/2137, from which it can be seen that Denmark does not agree that there is an infringement of EU legislation. The Danish AgriFish Agency therefore has a clear desire to present all the information that can demonstrate that all the rules have been complied with. The Danish AgriFish Agency has, in relation to the above desire to understand the procedure of the mission, noted that the report was sent as a draft. The Danish AgriFish Agency therefore assumes that the Commission will send Denmark a final version of the report with the Agency s comments added. It is also assumed that Denmark has a further 30 days to comment on this. 12

13 The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 4. Mission findings : Point 4.1 It is stated in the report under 5) that not all of the logged by-catches are shown in the inspectors sampling, as small amounts of cod (up to 100 kg) are recorded in the logbook by the fisherman. The Danish AgriFish Agency is able to inform you that the logged amounts of cod shown in the submitted dataset were all logged as a result of being sorted with a view to sale for consumption. It is therefore quite natural that these were not shown by sampling, as the cod was not in the unsorted catch from which the sample was taken. In all cases, there was a separate sales note for the sorted cod. The Danish AgriFish Agency is also able to inform you that there is no guarantee that samples taken by inspectors will contain all the species that a master of a vessel found in the samples used as a basis for the logbook record. This applies regardless of how many samples are taken for species which are present only in small quantities in the catch retained on board. It is also stated under point 7)(d) that Denmark does not use logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes to calculate quota consumption and does not cross-check these documents in order to validate catch figures reported monthly to the Commission. The Danish AgriFish Agency cannot understand this comment. The system used in Denmark to count catches in unsorted landings has been described several times to the Commission and was also stated in the Fisheries Directorate s notification to the Commission on the changeover to the current system in The system uses the following information: Species from logbook Total catch from sales note Species from sales note 13

14 Catch composition from samples It is correct that data from the landing declaration are not used to calculate the Danish quota consumption. The use of data from landing declarations was deliberately excluded because this information cannot always be considered valid, as an individual fisherman may try to stretch a particular quota by reporting false by-catches of, for example, non-quota species. During the mission, the EU inspectors were shown landing declarations from Swedish vessels which showed a much higher amount of herring reported as a by-catch in fishing for sprat than shown by the Danish samples from the catch. The higher amounts of herring are reported in order to stretch the vessel s quota for sprat. The Danish AgriFish Agency would have considered it appropriate if the EU inspectors had indicated in the report that the above was indeed the reason why Denmark chose to calculate by-catch using a system that operates without being influenced by any incorrect reports. This was explained to the EU inspectors several times. It is stated in the report under 8) that, according to the explanations submitted prior to the mission (Annex 4), a by-catch calculation is not used for an area if samples are not taken from the area. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to point out that this information is found in Annex 1 and not in Annex 4. In addition, the Danish AgriFish Agency would like to state that it is correct that a calculated bycatch is not used for an area if no sample is available. Because the calculation of super-samples includes samples for the month before and month after, it is a condition for not calculating a bycatch for an area that a sample from a particular fishery has not been taken for a minimum of three months. In the light of this, it is extremely unusual for there to be landings for which there is no calculated by-catch. It is also stated in the report under point 9) that the explanations provided during the mission differed from the explanations provided before the mission concerning the data used to calculate by-catches on the basis of samples. The Danish AgriFish Agency believes this is based on a misunderstanding. The Danish AgriFish Agency is of the understanding that, during the mission, it was explained that information from both logbooks and sales notes is used to calculate by-catches. See also the comments on point 7)(d). It is also stated that Annex 4 explains that the by-catch calculation is based on ICES squares, while question 6 of the questionnaire Annex 3 explains that samples are not taken according to ICES squares. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to point out that this does not concern Annex 4, but Annex 1. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to inform the Commission that this is a matter of how question 6 is understood. The Danish AgriFish Agency understood the question as: How many samples are taken per ICES square by the Danish inspectors? Denmark s reply is therefore that the Danish inspectors do not specifically select a vessel to take a sample on the basis of the ICES squares in which the vessel has fished. Samples are therefore not taken on the basis of ICES squares. However, the subsequent calculation of the by-catches is based on the ICES squares that the fishing vessels have indicated in their logbooks. Point 4.2. It is stated under point 2)(a) that the deterrent effect of sanctions is questionable, as 5 out of 16 vessels repeated an offence within a six month period; (b) that Suspension of licence for 30 days appears to only cover fishing for industrial species as vessels may continue to fish for other stocks; (c) that sanctions for incorrect catch reporting are only applied if other infringements are detected. 14

15 The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to point out that Suspension of fishing licence for 30 days should be changed to Suspension of fishing authority for 30 days. The Danish AgriFish Agency would also like to clarify that, in most cases, the national sanction of withdrawing a vessel s licence to fish for industrial species is supplemented by a withdrawal of the vessel s individual annual quota on a one-for-one basis. This means that a withdrawal for 30 days entails, at the same time, a reduction in the vessel s annual quota for all industrial species by one twelfth. Furthermore, points are assigned in accordance with Article 92 of the Control Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, which ensures a significant sanction with deterrent effect for the infringement. The deterrent effect is further enhanced by the fact that the sanction is administrative and can therefore be decided without the involvement of judicial bodies. In the vast majority of cases, a sanction is applied within two to three days. The effect of the sanctions can also be seen in the 2014 Annual Report of the Danish AgriFish Agency, which shows a marked fall in serious infringements for landings of species for industrial purposes from 19 in 2013 to 10 in In the same period, the number of control operations on vessels landing species for industrial purposes rose from 15 % to 28 %. A total of 909 landings for industrial purposes were inspected in The Danish AgriFish Agency does not therefore agree with the EU inspectors that the deterrent effect of the sanctions is questionable. It is stated in the report under 3) that the Danish authorities are not convinced of the need to enforce EU rules on logbooks in industrial fisheries, as (a) quantities reported in logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes are not used for quota reporting, and (b) Denmark considers the rules impossible for the industry to follow and thus unfair. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to clarify that Denmark does consider it necessary to enforce EU rules on keeping logbooks. During the mission, it was explained to the EU inspectors that the Danish system for counting by-catches in industrial fishing is not dependent on the detailed recording of species composition in logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes. See the comments on point 4.1(7). It should also be noted that Denmark has repeatedly told the Commission that the rules on the correct keeping of logbooks, indicating all the species that make up more than 50 kg of the total catch, are unmanageable for the industry for species that make up an insignificant part of the catch. If, for example, a sample of 100 kg is taken from a catch, and a single cod weighing 100 g is found in the sample, this amounts to 0.1 % of the total catch. If the total catch is 100 tonnes, the logbook should indicate 100 kg of cod. If the vessel master did not have cod in the samples forming the basis for his logbook keeping, or he found a cod weighing 150 g, there is an infringement of the EU rules on keeping logbooks because the logbook difference is more than 10 %. In the light of this, the Danish AgriFish Agency considers the rules impossible for the industry to comply with. On the basis of the EU rules, a vessel master who fishes for industrial species will always infringe the rules, because it is a matter of chance whether a sample taken by an inspector has precisely the same composition as the sample taken by the fisherman when filling in the logbook. It is the Danish AgriFish Agency s opinion that there is considerable disrespect for the rules on keeping logbooks for unsorted catches because it is impossible to comply with the rules. The Danish AgriFish Agency considers it a gross over-interpretation when, on the basis of the above, the EU inspectors conclude that Denmark is not convinced of the necessity to enforce the EU rules on logbook keeping in industrial fisheries. The comment is also at odds with the EU inspectors comments in 4.1(2), where it is stated that the Danish authorities train and involve fishermen in trial fishing to be able to correctly estimate catch composition in logbooks. It is also stated under (a) that the Danish AgriFish Agency considers the Danish system to be better than the one set out in the Control Regulation. The Danish AgriFish Agency presumes that the EU inspectors comment refers back to their explanation during the mission that catches are to be counted on the basis of the quantity indicated in landing declarations. Denmark considers the Danish system to be fully in compliance with Article 33, and cannot see from Article 33 that there is a specific system that must be followed. Article 33 states that Member States shall record all relevant data, in particular data from logbooks, transhipment declarations, landing declarations, effort reports 15

16 and sales notes. Denmark cannot see from this that counting against quotas must only be done on the basis of one or more of the above documents. Article 33 can also not be seen as being a description of a specific system, as argued by the EU inspectors. However, it is stated that all relevant data must be recorded. It should be added that the Danish AgriFish Agency considers a sample of the actual catch composition to be particularly relevant data. As Denmark counts catches on the basis of information from logbooks and sales notes, supplemented by random samples, the Danish AgriFish Agency considers that the requirements of Article 33 have been met. The Danish AgriFish Agency would also like to draw the Commission s attention to the fact that counting of catches from vessels which do not keep logbooks in accordance with the Control Regulation can be calculated on the basis of samples or sales notes. Denmark is aware that other countries use alternative systems for this, such as monthly reports per vessel. The Danish AgriFish Agency therefore finds it difficult to understand why the Commission believes that the Danish alternative system based on random samples is not covered by Article 33. The Danish AgriFish Agency is able to inform you that Denmark considers counting on the basis of samples aggregated for all landings of industrial fish to be better than counting on the basis of data from the landing declaration. This is based on the fact that the use of data from landing declarations cannot always be considered valid, as an individual fisherman may try to stretch a particular quota by reporting false by-catches of, for example, non-quota species. At the same time, the uncertainty surrounding logbook records for species which make up a small part of the catch is very great, so it is often found that they are not recorded in the logbook or the landing declaration by either Danish or foreign vessels. When these catches are not recorded in the landing declaration, the correct amount is not counted under the system that the EU inspectors argue is applicable. These less significant species are counted against the Danish quotas in the proportion that they are found in the Danish random samples. The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 5. Preliminary summary findings presented during the debriefing of the MS : 16

17 Point 5. It is stated in the report under point 5 that Denmark questioned the Commission s mandate for the mission to examine the reliability of the Danish quota reporting system, as logbooks are not used for quota reporting. See the comments on point 3.3. The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 6. Post mission information and data analysis : Point 6. It is stated in the report that the EU inspectors analysed 105 fishing trips on the basis of data submitted. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to clarify that the data submitted included 93 fishing trips. It is stated in the report under (a) that landing declarations are not sent to the authorities because only 23 were available. The Danish AgriFish Agency is able to inform you that Denmark is in the process of implementing the requirement to submit landing declarations. In connection with this, the Danish AgriFish Agency would like to draw the Commission s attention to previous EU missions to Denmark, in particular DK-E , which was a follow-up mission based on EU Pilot 3140/12/MARE. On the basis of the above mission it was considered that Denmark was showing progress with regard to the submission of landing declarations, which is why it is not included in case No 2014/2137. It is also correct that there are only 23 landing declarations in the submitted dataset. It should be noted, however, that the fishing trips in the submitted dataset were carried out on a total of 13 vessels, of which seven submit correct landing declarations. The remaining six vessels are, of course, the ones that the Danish controls are focusing on to train them to complete and submit landing declarations. Of the 93 fishing trips in the dataset, 48 were carried out by two vessels which do not submit landing declarations. In the light of this, the Danish AgriFish Agency considers it misleading to look only at the fishing trips, without taking the number of vessels into consideration. It is stated under (b) that five sales notes were missing and that 53 sales notes did not reflect the catch composition, but only contained the main species. The Danish AgriFish Agency regrets that five sales notes were missing. The absence was due to an error in the data extraction. Sales notes for all 93 fishing trips are available. The Danish AgriFish Agency can confirm that 53 sales notes only contained the main species and did not reflect the catch composition in the logbook and landing declaration. The Danish AgriFish Agency accepts that there is a problem, and we are therefore also working to improve the quality of reporting of data from the recipients and buyers. It is stated under (c) that in 20 sales notes only the main species was listed. See the comments on point 7. It is stated in the report that the reliability of the Danish alternative system is considered questionable for the following reasons: (1) The relatively small size of the samples used for calculations The Danish AgriFish Agency can firmly refute this assertion. See the comments under (3) (2) The questionable representativeness of samples for vessels straddling several rectangles and for vessels fishing in rectangles where no samples were taken. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not understand the EU inspectors comments that there is questionable representativeness in the light of vessels that fish across several ICES rectangles. The Danish AgriFish Agency s system uses the ICES rectangles that are indicated in the vessels logbooks. Samples taken from a vessel that has fished in several squares are therefore calculated as a weighted average of the catches for the ICES squares indicated in the logbook. According to the Commission s implementing provisions (Regulation (EU) No 404/2011), catches in the logbook must be recorded in the square and waters in which the majority of the catch was taken. The catch record in the logbook is thus based on the individual vessel 17

18 master s judgement and cannot therefore be regarded as precise information. Counting catches on the basis of a landing declaration is thus only as precise as the vessel master s judgement. The Danish AgriFish Agency therefore sees no difference between counting catches on the basis of samples and on the basis of a landing declaration, as the calculation is based on the same information. The Danish AgriFish Agency accepts that, for vessels which have fished in an ICES square from which no samples have been taken, the calculation of the by-catch is not precise. See the comments under (3). (3) In the evaluation of the Danish alternative system against FAO sampling methodology, the following is noted: (a) Accuracy level of vessel catch composition, and (b) Accuracy level of the quota consumption estimates. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to draw the Commission s attention to the following attached reports and papers: Sampling methods and errors in the Danish North Sea industrial fishery, Peter Lewy, Report from the Committee for the Industrial Fisheries Sector, October Assessment of the sustainability of industrial fisheries producing fish meal and fish oil, June Description of the Danish monitoring scheme for the small meshed fishery in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Jørgen Dalskov, DTU Aqua. The precautionary approach to North Sea Fisheries management, Seminar, Oslo The industrial fishery and the North Sea Sandeel Stock, Henrik Gislason and Eskild Kirkegaard (annex in The precautionary approach to North Sea Fisheries management, page 69). As the above reports and papers show, the Danish system, which has been used for many years, has often been discussed and evaluated both by the Commission and by other impartial bodies. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like in particular to draw attention to page 71 in The precautionary approach to North Sea Fisheries management, report annex The industrial fishery and the North Sea Sandeel Stock, which contains the following passage: The quality of the landing statistics for the different species caught in the industrial fisheries has been questioned. The Danish and Norwegian sampling system of industrial landings were evaluated by a Working Group set up by the European Commission and Norway (Anon 1993). The Working Group concluded that the sampling system in use provide a reliable and unbiased description of the species composition of the landings, and that little is gained in precision by increasing the sampling intensity. Lewy (1995) came to the same conclusion in his investigation of the sampling scheme for the Danish industrial fisheries. In general, the reports conclude that the Danish system is reliable, impartial and statistically correct. The precondition for the statistical correctness is that samples are taken from between 13 and 21 % of the landed quantities and are based on an average sample of 10 kg. The Danish AgriFish Agency would add that the Danish benchmark for the inspection of catches of, for example, sprat from the North Sea is that 20 % of the landings should be inspected. Benchmarks (15 different ones depending on the species and area) for landings of industrial fish were sent to the EU inspectors prior to the mission. It can also be added that Denmark has always complied with the benchmarks laid down. Furthermore, the report from Peter Lewy of 1995 was, among other things, one of the reasons for the notification letter to the Commission in

19 The Danish AgriFish Agency s comments on 7. Conclusions based on the above findings and post-mission analysis : Point 7. It is stated in the report under (1)(a) that around 35 % of the logbooks only contain the main species. It is also stated that Denmark previously indicated that there is always a herring bycatch in unsorted catches of sprat. This means that 35 % of the logbooks do not contain the correct catch composition. For the record, the Danish AgriFish Agency would like to point out that, while there were 93 fishing trips in the submitted data extract, 27 % follow the method used by the EU inspectors. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to draw the EU inspectors attention to the submitted sample forms. The submitted data contains a single sample that consists of 100 % pure sprat. This corresponds to 4 % of the landings in the submitted data extract. In connection with DK-E , a similar statement was prepared showing that 12.5 % of landings from Danish vessels in a data extract consisted of 100 % pure sprat. It may therefore be concluded that catches of pure sprat do take place, regardless of Denmark s earlier replies, and regardless of what the EU inspectors believe they can conclude. The Danish AgriFish Agency would also like to point out that, if 27 % do not record several species in the logbook, 73 % do record several species in the logbook. The Danish AgriFish Agency considers this particularly positive and to be a sign that the effort that has been put into this appears to be working. It is stated under (3) that sanctions do not have a deterrent effect. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on point 4.2. It is stated in the report under (4) that the inaccurate keeping of logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes, and missing sales notes and landing declarations, may result in an inability to carry out cross-checks and validation of data as provided for in Article 109. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to inform the Commission that the purpose of Article 109 of the Control Regulation is that cross-checks of data should be carried out. It should be pointed out here that the purpose is not that cross-checks should be carried out without finding any inconsistencies. The purpose is instead that any inconsistencies in the data should be found. In the light of the inconsistencies found, reports can be corrected, sanctions imposed and knowledge gained about areas requiring a special control effort. In the light of this, the Danish AgriFish Agency considers the EU inspectors conclusion to be wrong. It is stated in the report under (6) that the calculation of quota consumption on the basis of samples may have the advantage of reducing the impact of inaccurate catch reporting, but its legality and even its reliability are highly questionable. The Danish AgriFish Agency does not agree with this conclusion and would like to draw the Commission s attention to the comments on points 4.2 and 6. The Danish AgriFish Agency s concluding remarks: Finally, the Danish AgriFish Agency would like to inform the Commission that the Danish system used to count by-catches in unsorted landings is particularly effective and ensures that there is counting against quotas for all species present in these fisheries. The method of using samples to count all catches, regardless of whether a sample is taken from the individual landing or not, ensures counting that is entirely independent of the vessels recording of species in logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes. Incentives to declare an incorrect catch composition are thus fully eliminated. The Danish AgriFish Agency would like to point out, however, that the EU inspectors were informed during their mission that Denmark is considering moving from the current system to counting catches on the basis of landing declarations. The reason for these considerations is that there are some challenges with the quota uptake against by-catch quotas as a result of the changeover to the landing obligation for industrial fishing. In the light of this, Denmark is considering making an individual allocation of by-catch quantities, which requires 19