Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'The common fisheries policy: safeguarding of fisheries-dependent regions` (97/C 379/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to its decision of 18 October 1996, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198C of the Treaty establishing the European Community to draw up an opinion on 'The common fisheries policy: safeguarding of fisheries-dependent regions` and to entrust its preparation to Commission 2 - Spatial Planning, Agriculture, Hunting, Fisheries, Forestry, Marine Environment and Upland Areas;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 2 on 25 June 1997 (rapporteurs: Mr Day and Mr McPherson),

adopted the following opinion at its 19th plenary session on 17 and 18 September 1997 (meeting of 17 September) unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Committee of the Regions has adopted an own-initiative Opinion on the regional consequences of the Common Fisheries Policy (). This is a wide-ranging opinion addressing many issues that arise for the regions from the implementation of the CFP. In summary, it recommended the greater involvement of 'users` (fishing enterprises and regions highly-dependent on fishing) in the management of fish resources. It concluded that this would improve compliance with regulation aimed at conservation of fish stocks and allow more flexible application of existing measures to restructure the fisheries sector. The opinion proposed an approach that addressed the core problems of the industry rather than the symptoms of those problems.

1.2. The European Commission published its response to the existing COR opinion in December 1996. This current opinion seeks to clarify key issues from the first opinion that the Commission, on the evidence of its response, has not fully understood or accepted. It further seeks to express to the Commission the Committee of the Region's views in respect of three critically important matters:

i) the lack of funding for and, as a result, confidence in estimates of the state of fish stocks and the frustration this causes in fisheries-dependent communities and regions when fishing effort is restricted by scientific estimates that do not equate with the experience of the fishing industry;

ii) the need for better definitions of fisheries-dependent communities and regions and the need to take into account the species of key economic importance to a community in determining quota distribution;

iii) the need to create the conditions where quota allocated by a Member State to vessels flying the flag of that Member State results in a direct economic benefit for the fisheries-dependent communities and regions of that Member State without prejudice to the fundamental principles of the European Union and respecting the case law of the European Court of Justice.

2. Clarification of Opinion CdR 14/96

2.1. The European Commission's view that the specific criticisms in Opinion CdR 14/96 are largely inapplicable because of recent developments in the CFP is not accepted. While it is acknowledged by this Committee that in preparing for MAGPIV a degree of consultation with representatives of local and regional authorities and fisheries organizations was undertaken, this falls considerably short of the participation in policy decisions envisaged by the opinion. The Committee remains of the view that management of fish stocks can be more effective if the fishing industry has a true partnership with Member States and the European Commission in sharing responsibility for determining and achieving sustainable levels of exploitation.

2.2. The Commission considers that incorporation of the criterion of fishery-dependent areas in the territorial objectives of the Structural Funds has given these areas access to European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund and the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the introduction of the Pesca Community initiative will encourage economic diversification involving local and regional actors in a 'bottom-up` approach. The Committee of the Regions believes that since ESF and ERDF are neither sector-specific nor industry-targeted, their direct impacts on industry problems as opposed to the symptoms of industry problems is limited. FIFG is more targeted in its objectives which allows it to begin to tackle the socio-economic and fishery dimension of the industry. Similarly, Pesca, being designed to encourage economic diversification, will not assist those that are unable to leave or who choose to remain within the industry. It is severely limited in the overall effect it can have with regard to the resource management of any specific fishery. The Committee therefore considers that the structural instruments for fisheries must be better adjusted, ensuring that they apply to coastal communities, and should be provided with greater budgetary resources in line with the sacrifices demanded of the sector, the challenges it faces and its contribution to the economy of the European Union.

2.3. The Committee of the Regions recognizes the importance of structural policy measures in promoting broad-based, sustainable development and the economic diversification of fishery-dependent regions. This is particularly true of the Pesca initiative which is primarily a regional development instrument and should therefore be managed at regional level by a partnership of local and regional authorities and the fishery industry. The COR supports the Commission's intentions as set out in Agenda 2000 to give greater consideration to coastal communities and fishery-dependent regions in the next reform of the Structural Funds.

The COR nevertheless feels that structural instruments can be better tailored to the special conditions and problems pertaining in fishery-dependent areas, particularly by giving the fishery industry and local and regional authorities in those areas a greater role in preparation and implementation. The same goes for more sector-specific and industry-targeted measures.

2.4. The Commission considers that the definition of the effects expected from the technical measures in the initial opinion is incorrect. The Committee maintains its view expressed in the opinion that, from an economic viewpoint, technical conservation measures are likely to lead to a reduction in the net benefits through short-term reductions in efficiency and in revenue. In addition, the point is again made that, given their potential short-term negative impacts and complexity, difficulties have arisen in enforcement. Technical measures may not seek to reduce revenue but their effects may be substantially different from the results sought and achieved, particularly in the short term.

2.5. The Commission's view that coastal zones have been protected by fisheries quota is questioned by the Committee. Fisheries quotas are not related to coastal zones and are not therefore designed to be a deterrent to fishing effort in those zones. Furthermore, the exploitation of the resources in coastal zones extends to non-TAC species where fishing effort is not limited. The Committee remains of the opinion that greater regional involvement in decision-taking would ensure preference in the coastal zone for vessels operating from small coastal communities.

2.6. The Commission is in favour of developing ideas that bring the CFP closer to regional realities and characteristics but insists that these ideas must take place in the existing institutional framework which is one of a common policy and not juxtaposed policies. The Committee's opinion is that the critical issue is the effects that the implementation of general policy have at specific local levels. While the CFP represents the institutional framework, regional implementation must take account of the specific social and economic consequences that exist.

3. Estimation of fish resources

3.1. It is the Committee's view that there is insufficient resourcing applied to the assessment of fish stocks throughout the EU. Since credible assessment of stocks is a fundamental necessity in any management regime, this failing undermines the principle of a policy attempting to balance fishing effort to available fish resources. In the absence of reliable and verifiable measures, it is regrettable that the application of a precautionary approach is inevitable. This problem is amplified when non-TAC stocks are considered. The current low level of resourcing of fisheries research in this field is evident in many Member States and the Commission should encourage Member States to provide adequate resources to produce credible data.

3.2. The current reliance on scientific estimation based on flawed data does not allow the conditions experienced by those engaged directly in fishing stocks to influence the setting or modification of TAC limits. The divergence between the advice on stocks derived from scientific opinion and the availability of fish evidenced by the fishing fleets creates suspicion and doubts on the part of the fishing industry. This results in a lack of confidence in the basic idea of the CFP and at its extreme a distinct lack of ownership of the TAC levels by the fish producers.

3.3. If the extent of the natural resource base is not known in detail it is impossible to formulate rational management plans for its exploitation. In the present context the Commission is proposing wide-ranging fleet reductions under MAGPIV in order to match fleet capacity to available fish. The Committee considers this to be an erroneous process unless fish stocks can be better defined. Decommissioning of boats in an unstructured way that does not follow a strategy based on accurate stock assessment may well have an effect opposite to the intended one of matching fishing effort to fish stocks. Such fleet cuts are likely to disproportionately disadvantage fisheries-dependent communities and regions. Member States should be encouraged to determine decommissioning schemes which adopt structures that take into account regional fisheries dependency and allow for natural fluctuations in fish stocks.

3.4. Drastic changes in quota from year to year based on incomplete and outdated scientific evidence has been responsible for causing further instability within the industry. There is a distinct disincentive to capital investment in fish production. This affects not only renewal of ageing fleets but investment in shore-based fish processing facilities that would add value to primary products within fisheries-dependent regions and thus enhance local economies.

3.5. The process from stock assessment through to final allocation of TAC requires review so that future quotas are fixed prior to the end of the current quota year. There is a need to establish longer-term assessments of stocks and hence quotas and to introduce more responsive processes to speed up increases in TAC for species after scientific knowledge has been gained. It is the Committee's opinion that the introduction of multi-annual TACs would provide a more stable basis for planning and management at a regional level. Consideration should be given to altering the quota year to take account of biological considerations (such as spawning periods of key fish stocks) and economic considerations (such as market fluctuations). The Committee considers that the quota year could vary from region to region. The fundamental point remains that the knowledge and experience of fish producers themselves should be allowed to adjust the quotas within individual fisheries.

4. Definition of fisheries dependency

4.1. It is the opinion of the Committee that new economic criteria for assessing the dependency of regional communities on fisheries are required and that these should take account of the stocks of key importance exploited in that fishery, i.e. those species without which the local fishing fleet would not be viable.

4.2. Given the inadequate resourcing of scientific stock-level assessment, these species of key economic importance should be identified for each region and scientific evaluation effort should be focused on these. This concentration of measurement on the species of greatest economic importance to a region would enable the maximum sustainable exploitation of that stock and local fishing effort can be tailored accordingly. Greater transparency in the process of scientific assessment and the admission of local fish producers' knowledge to the assessment process, would result in improved ownership of management responsibilities by the industry within each region.

5. Retention of economic benefit

5.1. The need to match fishing capacity to sustainable levels of fish resources is not in question and it is accepted that under the current operation of the CFP the control mechanism adopted is the allocation of fishing quotas for each stock to individual Member States. While this continues to be the case, in order to safeguard the needs of regions and communities dependent on fisheries and related industries, the criteria for distributing quota to vessels flying the flag of a Member State must be able to ensure that there is an economic link between those vessels and the Member State's dependent regions without prejudice to the fundamental principles of the European Union and respecting the case law of the European Court of Justice.

Brussels, 17 September 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() CdR 14/96, 18 January 1996 - OJ C 129, 2. 5. 1996, p. 1.