Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending for the fourth time Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and for processing and marketing of its products` () (97/C 30/13)

On 5 June 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 18 July 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Little.

At its 338th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 September 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with 96 votes in favour and nine abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 provides the general framework for structural assistance to the fisheries sector under the Financial Instrument of Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The Commission's latest proposal seeks to make three separate modifications to the Regulation.

1.2. At present, under the Regulation, part-financing from the FIFG is specifically excluded for measures to promote and find new outlets for fishery and aquaculture products where such measures make reference to particular countries or regions. It is contended by the Commission that, while in most cases, the quality of fish species caught at sea does not depend on the zone in which they are caught, some species, particularly farmed species, do have specific qualities resulting from the place where they are raised and the processing techniques used. In such cases, mention of the geographical origin of the product or the location of processing gives the consumer objective information about qualities and, accordingly, the Commission now proposes that aid should be available provided that recognition of the origin of location has been obtained under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

1.3. Under Regulation 3699/93 aid to producer organizations may be given for measures which fall within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 3759/92. A new Article 7b) of the latter extends aid to the implementation of a plan to improve the quality and marketing of such organizations' products. The Commission proposes that, in the interests of consistency, reference should be made in Regulation 3699/93 to the new Article.

1.4. It is proposed by the Commission that, as the agri-monetary rate for the ecu is not being used for aid from FIFG, it should be stated formally within Regulation No 3699/93, for reasons of clarity, that the budgetary rate for the ecu is the only one to be used with effect from 1 January 1994.

2. Comments

2.1. It is unreasonable to exclude part-financing from FIFG for measures to promote new market outlets where reference is made to specific countries or regions in cases where it can be established that the fish products concerned do have specific qualities resulting from the place where they are raised and from the processing techniques used. Thus, in principle, the Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal to widen the terms of eligibility to products recognized as having such specific qualities. However, it would not be satisfactory for recognition to be attainable only by registration under Articles 2 and 6(3) of Regulation 2081/92 as it stands a present.

2.2. The two other modifications proposed by the Commission are justified in the interests of consistency and clarify.

2.3. Subject to the point made in 3.2, the Committee supports the Commission's proposals.

3. Specific comments

3.1. In its Opinion () on the introduction of Regulation 2081/92, the Committee welcomed the proposal on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and supported its general approach and scope. Fish products are not excluded, in principle, from such protection but, it is understood, none have so far been registered under Article 6(3) of the Regulation. It is not now possible for any fish caught at sea to be so registered because such fish would not meet the basic geographical qualification set by Article 2(2) and the deadline for derogation under Articles 2(4) and 2(7) has been passed. The extension of eligibility would thus apply only to farmed species which qualified under Article 2(2).

3.2. In those cases where products from fish caught at sea do have specific qualities resulting from the processing techniques used and where the conditions for derogation under Article 2(4) can be met, such fish products should be as entitled to support under FIFG as are farmed products. The Commission appears to acknowledge that in its explanatory memorandum. The Committee recommends that the Commission should propose to the Council an appropriate amendment to Article 2(7) of Regulation 2081/92 so that fish caught at sea which do have such specific qualities and which otherwise meet the conditions of Article 2(4) are not excluded from eligibility from registration.

Brussels, 25 September 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 178, 21. 6. 1996, p. 20.

() OJ No C 269, 14. 10. 1991, p. 62.