# C_2011018EN.01005901.xml

| 19.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/59

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Building a sustainable future for aquaculture — A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture’

COM(2009) 162 final

2011/C 18/10

Rapporteur: Mr ESPUNY MOYANO

Mr ESPUNY MOYANO

On 8 April 2009 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Building a sustainable future for aquaculture - A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European aquaculture

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Building a sustainable future for aquaculture - A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European aquaculture

COM(2009) 162 final.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 25 March 2010.

At its 462nd plenary session, held on 28 and 29 April 2010 (meeting of 28 April), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 150 votes to one, with three abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions and recommendations

1.1   The EESC reiterates its concern, previously expressed in its opinion on the 2003 strategy (1), that the competitiveness of aquaculture in the EU is being undermined by an unsuitable regulatory framework. It is unnecessarily affected by regulations in various fields, posing further hurdles to the development of the sector.

1

1.2   The EESC therefore welcomes the Commission's communication and believes that it has come at the right time.

1.3   European aquaculture must return to a pattern of sustainable growth that enables it to meet demand for nutritional, healthy, safe aquatic products. If properly developed, it will boost the socio-economic development of the areas in which it is present, improve the supply of stable, high-quality jobs and help to keep the population in the area.

1.4   The EESC reiterates its conviction that the single market is one of the main assets of the EU. It is therefore concerned by the lack of legislative consistency and uniformity between Member States, particularly in terms of the labelling of aquatic products and the interpretation of European environmental legislation, for example in the context of the Natura 2000 network or the Water Framework Directive.

1.5   With the growing occupation of coastal areas, it is important to step up the search for synergies between compatible activities, including environmental protection. The scarcity of areas devoted especially to aquaculture is one of the main reasons for the stagnation of the sector in the EU. The EESC recommends improving and streamlining processes for granting authorisations and licences for fish farms, and making procedures simpler and more flexible in order to reduce authorisation times.

1.6   The EESC expresses its concern that current point-of-sale labelling of aquatic products is insufficient and prevents consumers from making responsible, informed purchases. This is borne out, for example, in the difficulties that consumers face in recognising EU-farmed aquatic products as opposed to imports, and in distinguishing fresh aquatic products from defrosted ones.

1.7   The EESC is concerned by the fact that imported aquatic products do not meet the health standards imposed in the EU. The different criteria applied with regard to the traceability requirement are particularly worrying, as this is a key factor in food safety. The EESC is also concerned about socio-occupational conditions, such as work carried out by minors or under conditions approaching slave labour.

1.8   Aquaculture produces high quality food in the aquatic milieu, and it is not compatible with a degraded or polluted environment. It is therefore important to ensure that EU waters are in good condition.

1.8.1   While environmental protection is one of the EU's priorities, this should not prevent activities from being carried out if they can be compatible with it. The Commission should endeavour to explain the key environmental protection legislation, particularly the Natura 2000 network, and its links and compatibility with aquaculture.

1.8.2   The EESC recommends encouraging eco-labelling for aquaculture products. This should make it possible to distinguish and promote the environmental excellence of aquaculture products from properly managed fish farms that are focused on sustainable development.

1.9   Given the innovative nature of European aquaculture, the EESC highlights the need to boost technological research and development in the field. The European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform that has recently been set up will form an excellent springboard to achieve this.

1.10   With regard to animal health, the EESC is concerned at the lack of authorised veterinary medicine available for aquaculture.

2.   Gist of the Commission Communication

Gist of the Commission Communication

2.1   The aim of the communication is to identify the causes of the stagnation observed in the EU's aquaculture industry, and to reinvigorate its development. To this end, the Commission has drawn up a three-pronged proposal designed to promote competitiveness, establish conditions for sustainable growth and improve the image and governance of the sector.

2.2   The Commission proposes to promote the competitiveness of EU aquaculture production by developing a competitive, diversified aquaculture sector, supported by innovation.

promote the competitiveness of EU aquaculture production

2.2.1   The sustainable development of aquaculture should be backed by . To achieve this, the Commission will promote RDI initiatives, foster the development of research infrastructure and allocate adequate resources.

2.2.2   The Commission proposes making aquaculture an equal competitor, in terms of , with other activities and finding synergies between activities.

2.2.3   European aquaculture should be able to answer to , be adaptable to market requirements and interact on an equal footing with the other players in the marketing chain. To this end, the Commission will address the needs of the aquaculture sector regarding producer organisations, inter-professions, consumer information and marketing instruments.

2.2.4   The of aquaculture must offer related sectors opportunities for expansion and export. To achieve this, the Commission will promote sustainable aquaculture development in third countries.

2.3   The Commission aims to establish conditions for sustainable growth of aquaculture, guaranteeing a high level of protection of the natural environment. Aquatic food products that are manufactured in or imported to the EU will have to comply with high protection standards of consumer health and safety. The Community will promote a high level of protection for animal health and welfare.

establish conditions for sustainable growth of aquaculture

2.3.1    must be ensured. The Commission will therefore continue to emphasise the importance of environmentally sustainable aquaculture.

2.3.2   Conversely, aquaculture must have access to a and water of the highest quality, in order to protect the health of animals and the safety of products, particularly molluscs.

2.3.3   For optimal growth and production, a must be established on the basis of excellent husbandry conditions. The Commission will secure the full implementation of Directive 2006/88/EC (2) on aquatic animal health.

2

2.3.4    is a common concern to consumers, legislators and producers. The Commission will seek advice on fish welfare and will promote the adoption of a species-dependent approach.

2.3.5   The remains one of the major problems for the aquaculture industry. The Commission will therefore encourage the implementation of the recommendations of the ‘Availability Task Force’ in its 2007 report.

2.3.6   The availability of remains essential for the development of aquaculture. The Commission will increase the availability of necessary additives for fish feed and will revise legislation on by-products.

2.3.7   The Commission must ensure and recognise the . The Commission will continue to address the need to ensure that domestic and imported aquatic food products are safe for the consumer. To this end, it will continue to base its actions on science and on the precautionary principle, and will take into consideration the health benefits of eating fish.

2.4   The sector's image and governance needs to be improved, creating a level-playing field in the EU.

sector's image and governance needs to be improved

2.4.1   Better should ensure a level-playing field among economic operators on decisions affecting the development of aquaculture. The Commission will therefore clarify the implementation of its environmental policy, particularly the Natura 2000 network, and will make sure that Member States implement EU animal health and consumer protection law properly. It will ensure that conditions for third countries are equivalent to those in the EU.

2.4.2   Reducing the , especially for SMEs, is essential to promote development of aquaculture. The Commission will therefore aim to simplify the legislative environment and reduce the administrative burden in the EU.

2.4.3   The Commission will promote proper and appropriate information to the public, by means of broad consultations and transparent information. This will help to improve regulation and governance, and will enhance the image of the industry.

2.4.4   The Commission will aim to ensure , as the EU's official statistics on aquaculture are currently fairly limited in scope. It will also extend its price information base in order to establish a monitoring system throughout the marketing chain.

3.   General comments

General comments

3.1   Aquaculture currently accounts for 47 % of the aquatic products consumed in the world. Its capacity for further growth remains considerable, which is why aquaculture could be a key aspect of a strategic food supply policy to meet future demand.

3.2   In the last ten years, the world's population has grown by 12 %, while seafood consumption has jumped by 27 %, owing in part to the health benefits of omega 3 acids, of which fish is an excellent source. The EU is the world's main market for aquatic products, consuming more than 12 million tonnes per year and counting. Self-sufficiency barely stands at 35 %. 65 % of the aquatic products consumed are therefore imported, and this percentage is increasing.

3.3   European aquaculture is covered by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which aims to ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources, taking environmental, social and economic factors into account. The reformed PCP must take the characteristics of aquaculture specifically into account and provide effective sector and market support instruments. It is suggested that the CFP be renamed the Common Fish and Aquaculture Policy (CFAP).

3.4   Within certain coastal and continental areas of the EU, aquaculture is an important business, including the farming of both molluscs and fish in fresh or sea water.

3.5   From an artisanal and small-scale activity, aquaculture in the EU has, since the 1970s, become a modern, dynamic, innovative, high-tech industry with businesses that are often vertically integrated.

3.6   Aquaculture in the EU provides jobs in remote river and coastal areas, which tend to be deprived and lacking in alternative employment opportunities. Both for family businesses and SMEs, jobs in aquaculture are specialised, requiring technical capability, and stable.

3.7   In its 2002 communication (COM(2002) 511), the Commission presented a strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture, aiming to:

| a) | create secure jobs, especially in areas particularly depending on fishing; |
| --- | --- |

a)

create secure jobs, especially in areas particularly depending on fishing;

| b) | guarantee the supply of safe, healthy fish products, in the quantities required by the market; |
| --- | --- |

b)

guarantee the supply of safe, healthy fish products, in the quantities required by the market;

| c) | promote an environmentally-friendly sector. |
| --- | --- |

c)

promote an environmentally-friendly sector.

3.8   The Commission has acknowledged that, since 2002, EU aquaculture has not developed as forecast and has even undergone overall stagnation as regards both molluscs and fish (seaweed and crustacean farming is virtually inexistent in Europe), in stark contrast with the high growth rate in the rest of the world. The Commission therefore considered it appropriate to revise its strategy and take stock of the current situation of European aquaculture.

4.   Specific comments

Specific comments

4.1   Aquaculture in the EU is not realising its full potential as a creator of wealth and jobs. The overall production figures have stagnated since 2002 and are not offsetting the reductions in fishing catches, resulting in a decline in the foreign trade balance. This is occurring even though Europe has the right physical and environmental conditions, cutting-edge technology and businesses ready to invest. Moreover, the sector has shown that it possesses the knowledge and resources to enable aquaculture to be environmentally sustainable, while providing healthy, safe, high-quality products.

4.2   The EU's complex legal framework, slow administrative procedures, limitations on access to public land and excessive administrative burdens discourage investment and hinder the competitiveness of European aquaculture production.

4.3   Many of the challenges that limit the development of European aquaculture directly depend on policies and actions taken at national or regional level. National and regional authorities should therefore be aware of this, and establish their own appropriate framework. There are some Member States where new aquaculture licences have not been granted for fifteen years. Sometimes, it is the interpretation of European legislation by national and regional administrations that results in distortions, as in the case of the Natura 2000 network, from which some administrations unjustifiably exclude aquaculture. Moreover, both Member States and regions with powers should coordinate their legislation in order to avoid creating artificial barriers to the free market within the EU.

4.4   The common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, which should stabilise markets and guarantee income for aquaculture producers, urgently needs to be reformed in order to strengthen producers’ organisations.

4.5   The Commission's previous communication (COM(2002) 511) overemphasised the environmental aspects of aquaculture and played down the economic and social aspects of sustainability. The current communication (COM(2009) 162) proposes a better balance between the three (environmental, social and economic) pillars of sustainability. It acknowledges that environmental sustainability is only possible with competitive, profitable businesses.

4.6   On the whole, the EU's aquaculture businesses are efficient and could be fully competitive if they had the same opportunities as those enjoyed by imported products. Current circumstances do not allow for these equal opportunities, in terms of either production or marketing. On the production side, European aquaculture producers must comply with strict rules on feed ingredients, on the restricted use of veterinary medicinal products and on environmental and social aspects, none of which are required of aquaculture producers in third countries who can, for their part, market their products freely in the EU (including those produced using child labour or other infringements of the right to decent work and fair pay). On the marketing side, some countries provide irregular incentives for aquaculture products subsequently marketed in the EU.

4.7   The incomplete information received by consumers on the characteristics of the aquatic products they buy prevents them from properly weighing up the differences in price and quality. This puts European producers, whose products generally offer greater added value than those that are imported, at a serious disadvantage. This misinformation includes, for example, inaccuracies in the country of origin or common name of the product. However, it is particularly serious when it relates to fish fillets which come from remote (often Asian) countries and are defrosted before sale. These fillets are sold alongside truly fresh fillets, but consumers are not clearly informed of the conditions for each type, so that the only thing guiding them in their purchase is the price. This could even lead to public health problems, if the fish were to be re-frozen.

4.8   The EESC therefore recommends both simplifying labelling in order to clarify, in particular, information on the country or area of origin, and strengthening the mechanisms for border inspections and controls.

4.9   Along with proper identification of aquatic products, training and information initiatives should be carried out across the distribution and marketing chain, and must also reach consumers. In particular, they should emphasise the presence of omega 3 fatty acids (specifically EPA and DHA).

4.10   The EESC recommends carrying out promotion campaigns to enhance the image of aquaculture and its products and processes. The messages to be conveyed should be identified by a specific study group entrusted with proposing initiatives, with the involvement of the sector. In this context, trans-national campaigns should be implemented, which should be coordinated by the European Commission.

4.11   European aquaculture is a high-tech, innovative business that requires ongoing scientific research. The current 7th framework programme, which covers all Community research initiatives, offers fewer opportunities for aquaculture research than previous framework programmes. It will therefore be difficult to improve the innovation and competitiveness of the European sector. The European aquaculture profession has recently established the European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform, with the aim of defining priorities for the sector with respect to RDI, and providing a strategic vision in order to achieve these.

4.11.1   The search should continue for alternative, safe, sustainable ingredients that still meet the nutritional and biological requirements of fish while ensuring that the end product offers the same nutritional benefits.

4.11.2   Efforts should be maintained to optimise current production systems, particularly those with clear possibilities for future expansion such as offshore sea aquaculture and inland recirculation systems.

4.12   The availability of veterinary medicinal products is a major hindrance to the development of aquaculture. At the moment, European aquaculture does not have sufficient veterinary products such as anaesthetics, vaccines or antibiotics. This undermines the viability of the sector and affects the health and welfare of the animals, food safety and environmental protection.

4.13   The Commission's communication proposes supporting the export of aquaculture production technology to third countries. Although this initiative shows a degree of solidarity that should clearly be supported, it is important to consider that the aquaculture products resulting from this exported technology may end up being imported into the EU where they will compete with European production.

4.14   The Commission communication accurately describes the causes of the current stagnation of aquaculture in the EU. However, it should not be considered as a completed work but, rather, as a starting point for designing and implementing specific actions to revive the sustainable development of aquaculture in the EU.

Brussels, 28 April 2010.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mario SEPI

---

(1)  OJ C 208, 3.9.2003, pp. 89-93.

1

(2)  OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 14.

2

---