EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 13.7.2011 
SEC(2011) 883 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying the document 
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products 
{COM(2011) 416 final} 
{SEC(2011) 884 final}  
 
1 TABLE OF CONTENT  
TABLES ......................................................................................................................... .....4 
LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................5 SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED 
PARTIES.....................................................................................................................6 
1.1. Identification......................................................................................................6 
1.2. Organisation and timing ....................................................................................6 1.3. Internal consultations.........................................................................................6 1.4. Stakeholders consultation..................................................................................7 1.5. Impact Assessment Board opinion ....................................................................8 
SECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT .....................................................................................8 
2.1. Common Market Organisation for fisheries and aquaculture products.............8 
2.2. Presentation, performance of the CM O instruments and the views of the 
stakeholders .......................................................................................................9 
2.3. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and interaction with the Market 
Policy ...........................................................................................................16 
2.4. Who is affected by the Market Policy and how?.............................................18 2.5. EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products..18 2.6. Cross cutting issues .........................................................................................19 
SECTION 3  PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION..................................................................20 
3.1. Limited contribution of the EU Market Policy to sustainability of production20 
3.1.1. Numerous EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way ......................20 3.1.2. Limited market incentives ...............................................................................21 3.1.3. Wrong policy signals .......................................................................................21 3.2. Deterioration of market position of EU production.........................................21 3.2.1. Limited or decreased EU production oppor tunities (fisheries and aquaculture)
 21 
3.2.2. Fragmentation of the production side and strong concentration of demand ...22 
3.2.3. Lack of competitiveness of EU operato rs in an increasingly globalised market
 22 
3.3. Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations...................................23 3.3.1. Lack of predictability of the EU supply ..........................................................23 3.3.2. Lack of anticipation of market demand by EU fishery and aquaculture 
producers .........................................................................................................24 
3.3.3. High volatility of fi rst sale prices ....................................................................25 
3.4. Under exploited market  potential in the EU....................................................27 
 
 23.4.1. EU marketing standards partially outdated .....................................................27 
3.4.2. Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices...............................27 3.5. Complex framework and burdensome implementation...................................28 3.5.1. Complex legal architecture..............................................................................28 3.5.2. Multiplicity and inconsistency of instruments.................................................28 3.5.3. Burdensome management................................................................................28 3.6. The right for the EU to act...............................................................................28 
SECTION 4  OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................29 
4.1. General objectives ...........................................................................................29 
4.2. Specific objectives...........................................................................................29 4.2.1. Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable production practices.....29 4.2.2. Improve market position of EU production.....................................................29 4.2.3. Better connect the EU production to the market .............................................30 4.2.4. Enhance market potential of EU products.......................................................30 4.2.5. Support better governance and simplification.................................................30 4.3. Intervention logic.............................................................................................31 
SECTION 5: POLICY OPTIONS.....................................................................................32 
5.1. Reinforced EU policy market incen tives to support sustainable production 
practices ...........................................................................................................32 
5.2. Improve market position of EU production.....................................................33 5.3. Better connect EU production to the EU market.............................................33 5.4. Enhance market potential of EU products.......................................................33 5.5. Support better governance and simplification.................................................34 
SECTION 6: M ETHODOLOGY US ED...........................................................................35 
6.1. Sources and data ..............................................................................................35 
6.2. Methodology to assess impacts .......................................................................35 
SECTION 7: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS .........................................................................36 
7.1. Option 1: Status quo (Base line scenario) .......................................................36 
7.2. Option 2: Adjustments.....................................................................................37 7.3. Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy .................................................................38 7.4. Option 4: Deregulation ....................................................................................41 
SECTION 8: COMPARING THE OPTIONS BY OBJECTIVES....................................46 
SECTION 9: MONITORI NG AND EVALUAT ION.......................................................48 
ANNEX 1: Current legal framework: Council Reg.(EC) n°104/2000 on the Common 
Organisation of the Markets of fisheries and aquaculture products ................50 
 
 3ANNEX 1 Bis Reformed legal framework of the new Market Policy s of fishery and 
aquaculture products........................................................................................52 
ANNEX 2: Presentation and evaluation of  Council Regulation (EC) n° 104/2000 on 
the Common Organisation of the Markets of fishery and aquaculture products
.........................................................................................................................53 
ANNEXE 3 : Points forts – points faibles de  l’OCM des Produits de la pêche et de 
l’aquaculture   (Reg 104/2000)........................................................................61 
ANNEXE 4: Points de vue des acteurs sur l’Organisation Commune des Marchés 
(OCM) des produits de la pêche et de l’ aquaculture et sur la réforme de la 
Politique de Marché.........................................................................................63 
ANNEX 5: Presentation and comparison of the CMO for Fruit and Vegetables and 
the CMO for Fisheries and Aquaculture..........................................................71 
ANNEX 6: EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture 
products ...........................................................................................................75 
ANNEX 7: Overview of the EU market fo r sustainable fishing certified products..78 
ANNEX 8: European markets Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products.82 
 
 
 4TABLES  
Table 1: Producers Organisations by EU countries (1971-2011) ..................................................11 
Table 2: Producers Organisations representativeness by country and species ..............................11 
Table 3: Key issues for stakeholders ...............................................................................................18 
Table 4: The five main problem areas of the current CMO and their underlying drivers ..............20 
Table 5: Case study:  the reintroduction of the Bay of Biscay anchovy ..........................................23 
Table 6: Case study: management of cod supply ............................................................................24 
Table 7: Case studies Nephrops: meeting the demand ....................................................................25 
Table 8: Case study: Evolution of North Sea Saithe price at first sale ...........................................26 
Table 9: EAGF spending and production value 2005 for CMO of agricultural and fisheries 
products ............................................................................................................................... ....26 
Table 10: Specific objectives for the main problems identified ......................................................29 
Table 11: Summary of impacts and administrative burden by option .............................................43 
Table 12: Comparing the options ....................................................................................................46 
 
 
5 LIST OF ACRONYMS  
 
ACFA:  Advisory Committee on Fisheries and 
Aquaculture  
CFP:  Common Fisheries Policy 
CMO:  Common Market Organisation 
DG AGRI:  Directorate-General for Agriculture 
and Rural Development of the European Commission 
DG COMP: Directorate-General for 
Competition of the European Commission 
DG DEVCO: Directorate General for 
Development and Cooperation of the European Commission  
DG ECFIN:  Directorate General for Economic 
and Financial Affairs of the European Commission 
DG EMPL:  Directorate-General for 
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission 
DG ENTR: Directorate-General for Enterprise 
and Industry of the European Commission 
DG ENV : Directorate-General for Environment 
of the European Commission 
DG MARE : Directorate-General for Maritime 
Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission 
DG MARKT:  Directorate-General for Internal 
Market and Services of the European Commission 
DG SANCO:  Directorate-General for Health and 
Consumers of the European Commission 
DG TAXUD: Directorate-General for Taxation 
and Customs Union of the European Commission  
DG TRADE:  Directorate-General for Trade of 
the European Commission EAGF:  European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
EFF:  European Fisheries Fund 
EU: European Union 
FAPs:  fisheries and aquaculture products 
FIFG:  Financial Instrument for Fisheries 
Guidance 
FIDES : Fishery Data Exchange System 
HORECA:  Hotel, Restaurant, Catering 
IAR:  Impact Assessment Report 
IASG : Impact Assessment Steering Group 
IBO:  Inter-branch Organisation 
MFN:  Most Favoured Nation 
MS: Member States 
MT:  Metric Tons 
MSC: Marine Stewardship Council 
MSY:  Maximum Sustainable Yield 
NGO:  Non-governmental Organisation 
PDO:  Protected Designation of Origin 
PGI: Protected Geographical Indication 
PO: Producers Organisation 
POCP : Programme Opérationnel de Campagne 
de Pêche 
RACs : Regional Advisory Council  
SG: Secretariat-General of the European 
Commission 
TAC:  Total Allowable Catches 
TFS:  Transferable Fishing Shares 
TFEU:  Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union  
 
 
6 SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Identification 
Lead Directorate General: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) 
Other Directorate-General involved: Secretariat-Ge neral of the European Commission (SG), Agriculture 
and Rural Development (DG AGRI), Competition (DG COMP), Development and Cooperation (DG 
DEVCO), Economic and Financial Affairs (DG EC FIN), Employment, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities (DG EMPL), Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTR), Environment (DG ENV), Internal Market and Services (DG MARKT), Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) and Trade (DG TRADE) 
Agenda Planning/WP reference: 2011/MARE/004 as part of the package on the reform of the Common 
Fisheries Policy 
This Impact Assessment report concerns the proposal for a Council and European Parliament Regulation on 
the reform of the Market Policy for fisheries and a quaculture products. This is part of the legislative 
proposal on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 
1.2. Organisation and timing 
In 2008, DG MARE launched a series of evaluations  and studies of the Council Regulation (EC) No 
104/2000 on the Common Market Organisation (CMO ) for fisheries and aquaculture products
1. The 
objectives were to evaluate impacts and relevance of the instruments and provisions of this legislation. 
This includes an evaluation of the financia l and non-financial instruments of the CMO2, (published in 
December 2008), a study on supply and marketing of fish eries and aquaculture products in the European 
Union (EU)3 (completed in 2009), as well as an analysis of possible scenarios for a reform of the Market 
Policy. The latest study analyses options for the main  objectives and instruments of the Market Policy and 
serves as a basis for this impact  assessment (publication foreseen in the first quarter of 2011).  
The outcomes of these studies have been published on th e internet and widely discussed with interested 
parties in view of reaching a common analysis on th e performance of the current legislation and possible 
improvements. 
It is planned to have the legislative proposal on th e Market Policy for fishery and aquaculture products 
adopted by the Commission, together with the propo sed Regulation on the new Common Fisheries Policy, 
in the second quarter of 2011. 
 
1.3. Internal consultations 
An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) for the re form of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was 
created in September 2009. Several sub-groups we re set up to thoroughly address specific issues and 
policies. In this context, the steering group for the reform of Market Policy first gathered on 14th January 
2010. The agenda consisted of evaluating the current  legislation, market development and reform 
objectives. A second meeting took place on 19th November 2010 and presented the draft impact assessment 
report of the options analysed for the reform. The minut es of this meeting are annexed to the current report. 
Members of the IASG Market Policy: AGRI, COMP, ECFIN, EMPL, ENTR, ENV, MARE (lead DG), 
MARKT, SANCO, TRADE and SG. 
 
                                                 
1 Council Regulation (EC) No  104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common orga nisation of the markets in fishery 
and aquaculture products, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/fisherie s/documentation/studies /study_evaluation_m arket/index_en.htm  
3 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm 
 
 71.4. Stakeholders consultation  
Consultations with stakeholders have  been carried out at various levels since 2008, as the reform of the 
Market Policy was originally planned for 2009/2010. Afte r the decision to merge the reform of the Market 
Policy with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) c onsultations and dialogue  were completed by: 
¾ A large and structured intern et-based public consultation  on market and trade issues which took 
place from 9th April 2009 to 31st December 2009 in the framework of the Green Paper for the reform of 
the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2009)163 final). Almost all of the 400 contributions received on the Green Paper addressed issues related to a reform of the Market Policy. This is summarised in a 
specific chapter (3.4) in the Co mmission Staff Working Document on “Synthesis of the Consultation 
on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy” SEC(2010)428 final - April 2010. 
¾ Wide consultation of the industry  (producers, importers, processors, retailers) and of non-
governmental actors  (development and environmental non governmental organisations (NGOs), 
consumers’ organisations) within the consultativ e bodies in place under the CFP (Regional Advisory 
Council (RACs), Advisory Committee for Fisheries a nd Aquaculture (ACFA) in particular Working 
Group III “Markets and trade”). 
¾ An extensive and constructive dialogue with MS  including more than ten ad hoc bilateral meetings 
with national representatives from the industry, th e national and regional administration, and the 
Management Committee. On average, these meeti ngs attracted between 20 to 80 participants. 
¾ The main challenges and options for the reform  of the Market Policy were presented at the EU 
Fisheries Directors General Meeting  in Prague (July 2008) and to Ministers in charge of Fisheries  at 
the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in June 2010. 
¾ A presentation of the main outcomes and external evaluations  were provided to Member States (MS) 
(bilateral meetings and meetings of Management Committee) and European associations of economic 
operators in 2009. 
¾ Four thematic seminars  on specific topics of interest for a reform of the Market Policy were 
organised: i) “Price formation for fisheries and aquaculture products” (December 2009), ii) “Quality and promotion for fisheries and aquaculture pr oducts” (April 2010), iii) “Supply of the EU market” 
(April 2010), iv) “Main issues and options of the reform of the Market Policy” (July 2010). The minutes and presentations of these seminars that attracted, on average, around 100 participants have been published on DG MARE's website
4. 
¾ The European Parliament, in particular the Committee of Fisheri es, has been closel y associated with 
these consultations and events specifically via th e EP position on the Green Paper on the CFP reform 
and  EP reports linked to market and trade issues5.  
The Commission minimum standards on consultation have  been met. Clear consultation documents are 
available in the form of a Green Paper and studi es have been published on the internet. A significant 
amount of publicity was generated ar ound this debate. All relevant ta rget groups were aware of these 
documents and the main positions at stake. Sufficient tim e for participation was ensured. Players have been 
consulted in various fora and pr ovided with feedback (stakeholders ’ conferences, written contributions, 
consultative groups, workshops, conferen ces and bilateral meetings etc.).  
                                                 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/news_and_events/events/ 
5 EP report on " Arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future 
reform of the CFP " (A7-0207/2010, Cadec report), and " A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture " (A7-0150/2010; Milena report) 
 
 81.5. Impact Assessment Board opinion 
A first draft of the IA report (IAR) was discussed with the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 9 March 
2011. In its first opinion of 11 March 2011, the Boar d made recommendations for improvements; mainly 
to: 
• Clearly explain why and how a reformed CMO pillar could contribute to o verarching 
sustainability goal set within the context of the overall CFP r eform 
• Clarify and better justify the intervention logic  
• Strengthen the analysis of impacts and the comparison of option s 
 
A new version of the IAR took these comments into account by providing in particular: 
• an earlier and more extensive presentation of the CMO tools and their evaluation (§2.2) 
• analysis of the challenges of a new market policy in the wider context of the CFP reform (§2.3) 
• more clarity on the intervention logic (§4.3) 
• strengthened analysis of impacts and comparis on of option (section 6 on methodology and section 
8 on comparing the options) 
The IAB requested to receive a revised draft of the IAR and issued a second opinion on 8 April 2011 where 
it acknowledged improvements made along the lines of so me of the comments made. It provided additional 
recommendations to: 
• Provide greater details on how reformed market inst ruments would play a relevant role in reformed 
CFP 
• Clarify some of the proposed measures in particul ar efficiency of new intervention instruments, 
implication of extending mandatory informa tion to consumers to out-of-home sector, and 
governance conditions in trade instruments  
• Strengthen the analysis of impact and comparison of options  
This IA report further develops the links between market and conservation instruments in section 8, 
economic impact analysis of intervention mechanis m. It abandons the proposal to extend mandatory 
information to consumers to out-of-home sector (take-away, restaurant and catering) and clarifies that governance conditions would only apply to imported pr oducts granted by preferential autonomous tariffs. 
Impact analysis in particular on the budget has been further developed in section 7.3. 
S
ECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT  
2.1. Common Market Organisation for fi sheries and aquaculture products 
The CMO was the first component of the CFP to be put in place in 1970. Like market organisations in 
agricultural products, its legal basis is Article 38 of  the Treaty. The CMO was created to achieve the 
objectives laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty in the fishery sector, in particular, to provide market stability, to ensure a stable supply of quality products, to guarantee fair income for producers and to ensure 
reasonable prices for consumers.  
The current CMO is more specifically designed to contribute to the CFP’s general objective of seeking 
sustainable fisheries and to secure th e future of the fishery sector. Its main goals are: (1) price stability; (2) 
optimal balance between supply and demand; (3) stre ngthened competitiveness; (4) ensure the supply of 
the EU processing industry while respecting the interest  of EU producers; (5) proper information to the 
consumer.  
 
 9The CMO has five instruments: (1) producer organisa tions; (2) price support system based on intervention; 
(3) common marketing standards; (4) consumer inform ation; (5) autonomous arrangements for trade with 
third countries.  
The regulatory framework through which the CMO is implemented includes 4 Council regulations and 23 
Commission regulations (See Annex 1). 
The CMO is financed by the Europ ean Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF)6 and the European Fisheries 
Fund (EFF) (Chapter 11.06) which supports the creation of POs, their restructuring and the implementation 
of their plans to improve quality. The EFF also cove rs measures addressed to associations of operators 
including POs, such as promotion campaigns, quality policy and certification. 
 
2.2. Presentation, performance of the CMO instru ments and the views of the stakeholders  
The following charts present the policy tools of the cu rrent CMO and the main outcome of its evaluation, 
as well as the views of stakeholders. Detailed anal yses are presented in Annexes 1, 2, 3 and 4.  
 
Organisation of the sector  
Description Evaluation 
The analysis of the operation of POs and IBOs shows the 
following aspects: 
► The CMO has effectively supported the organisation of 
fishermen in POs. Neverthe less, the acceptance of POs 
has been lower for the aquaculture sector;  
► The extension of rules, although complex to implement 
has contributed to limit the waste of resources and to 
enhance the value of landings. 
► The financial resources granted to POs by the EAGF 
and the EFF were modest and not always fully utilised 
by the MS.  
► POs lack resources to organise the upstream operators 
in a proper manner and to be a relevant tool for the 
implementation of the CFP; 
► The effect of operational programmes on matching 
supply with demand was limited. They remained a 
theoretical exercise but provided some educational 
value to POs in planning their activities;  
► The recognition of IBOs has been used very seldom. 
This may be due to the complex and often conflicting 
relations between producers and downstream operators, 
the low level of EU supply to the processing industry 
and the different concentration of upstream and 
downstream operators. 
 Producer Organisations (POs)  are a fundamental feature 
of the CMO since they cons titute the interface between 
catch/aquaculture activities and the market.  
 
They are set up voluntarily by fishermen or fish farmers to 
organise and stabilise the market and to improve the 
financial returns from their production   
 
In 2010, 238 POs (catch and aquaculture) were registered in 
17 EU countries and they represented some 60% of the fist 
sale value of EU production.  
 
POs may implement the following measures: i) 
management of intervention mechanisms ; ii) operational 
programmes for production (catches or aquaculture) and 
marketing planning , iii) quality improvement plans for  
products throughout all stages of production and marketing; 
(iv) extension of Producers’ Organisation’s (PO) 
production and marketing rules to non-members operating 
in the same area of activity.   
 
Financial assistance for the cr eation and the restructuration 
of POs is available under the EFF. On the other hand, the 
EAGF finances compensation for the preparation and 
implementation of operational programmes. 
 Views of the stakeholders 
                                                 
6  Budget line “11.02.01.01 (Interventions in fisherie s products) currently with around  €15 million/year   
 
 10Organisation of the sector  
Description Evaluation 
Interbranch Organisations (IBOs)  gather representatives 
of different branches of the value chain to take closer 
account of market realities and facilitate commercial 
linkage. Their purpose is to promote partnership measures 
of shared interest for the en tire sector market surveys and 
research, development of fisheries products, better 
adaptation of production to market requirements, etc.  
 
However, IBOs cannot engage themselves in production, 
processing or marketing activities.  
 
In 2007 there were 4 IBOs recognised in 3 MS: 2 in Spain 
(one in the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in France 
(aquaculture) and one in Italy (both catch and aquaculture). 
 
Interbranch organisations (IBOs) do not have access to 
start-up aids. Most of IBOs' activities can be financed by 
the EFF under collective actions, development of new 
markets and promotional campaigns.  ► There is a strong consensus on the key role that 
Producer Organisations (POs) can play in the 
implementation of both the Market Policy and the 
reformed CFP. 
►  They are considered as the main operators for the 
management of fishi ng activities including quota 
management. 
► A majority of stakeholders regret the current lack of 
responsibilities and means allocated to POs (including 
adequate financial support).  
► The establishment of transnational POs and aquaculture 
POs is regarded effective in further structuring the 
sector, enabling cross border cooperation and 
developing business strategies.  
► The mandate and management capacity of POs and 
IBOs should be reinforced in order to increase their 
role in implementing and controlling conservation 
policy at local level and in better linking supply to 
market demand. Aspects particularly well supported by 
producers were: rights and ab ility to manage production 
activities, concentration of  supply by EU producers, 
market analysis, marketing plans, innovation and 
quality initiatives. 
 
 
 11Table 1: Producers Organisations by EU countries (1971-2011)  
050100150200250
19711972197319741975197619771978
197919801981
198219831984
198519861987
19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998
199920002001
200220032004200520062007200820092010Belgium
Rom ania
Lithuania
Latvia
Gre ece
E stonia
De nm ar k
Ireland
Poland
Sweden
The Netherlands
Portugal
United Kingdom
Germ any
France
Italy
SpainEnlargment to 
Spain and 
PortugalReform of the 
CMOEU-25 EU-27
EU-15
Source: European Commission  
 
The various segments of production are well represented by POs, including small scale and coastal 
fisheries. In the aquaculture sector 30 POs were regist ered in 2010 mainly in the shellfish sector in SP, FR 
and the NL. 
Table 2: Producers Organisations representativeness by country and species 
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
BEL GBRPRT FRADNKESP
NLDFIN
DEU SWE LVA
LTU
 
Source: Fishery Data Exchange System (Fides) 
and Eurostat  
 0%20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 
Albacore  
Blue fin tuna 
Cod 
Shrimp 
Herring 
Hake  
Horse Mackerel
Spanish mackerelMackerel 
 
Norway lobste r
 Sardine 
Plaice 
Scallop 
Blue whiting 
 
 
12 Market interventions 
Description Evaluation 
The analysis of the implemen tation intervention mechanisms 
shows that: 
► The effects of withdrawal s and carry-over aid on the 
stability of the market are weak and limited to a few 
ports and fisheries of small pelagic species, in 
particular sardines in Portugal and France; herring in 
Denmark and Ireland; and mackerel in Spain, France 
and Ireland; 
► On average, the quantitie s withdrawn accounted for 
less than 2% of the production of pelagic species and 
around 1% of the production of whitefish; 
► The compensatory allowance for tuna has lost 
relevance due to the reduction of EU supply to the 
processing industry and the relocation of EU tuna 
canneries in third countries. The mechanism is also 
affected by it's administ rative complexity including 
long delays in payment; 
► The distinction "EU – independent" mechanisms is not 
relevant since there is no real "single EU market" for a 
given species but a diversity of national, regional or 
local markets; 
► The current EU price system is difficult to understand 
by operators, in particular the guide prices calculation 
method. Yet operators wish to maintain the price 
system with some adaptations as a "psychological 
reference" for the markets; 
► The guide prices and intervention system have mainly 
played the role of safety net by limiting intervention to 
exceptional circumstances; 
► The collection and centralisation of economic 
information through the FIDES notification system is 
a valuable reference for the markets. 
Views of the stakeholders Intervention provides financial compensation to fishery POs, 
which manage the different mechanisms.  
The intervention mechanisms ar e triggered when the market 
prices for certain fisheries products fall below a given 
threshold, e.g. withdrawal price, selling price.  
These prices are fixed annually by the Commission on the 
basis of the guide prices, which in turn are determined 
annually by the Council for 31 fresh and 12 frozen products 
of EU importance.  
The Council also fixes the Union producer price for tuna 
intended for processing. 
 
When market prices fall and intervention mechanisms are 
triggered, PO' members receive financial compensation.  
There are 4 intervention mechanisms based on a system of 
prices fixed at EU level: 
● Withdrawals: Products taken permanently off the 
market for human consumption, whose destination is 
destruction, animal feed (e.g. fish meals), bait or 
charity. The compensation is  a percentage of the 
withdrawal price. The per centage diminishes as the 
amount of withdrawn fish increases; 
● Carry-over: Storage and/or processing of products to be 
reintroduced onto the market for human consumption at 
a later stage. The aid is related to the amount of 
technical and financial costs of storage and/or 
processing; 
● Private storage: Storage of products frozen on board 
vessels intended for reintroduction onto the market for 
human consumption. The aid is related to the amount of 
technical and financial storage costs; 
● Compensatory allowance for tuna intended for 
processing:  Compensation to tuna producers for the 
absence of tariff protection on imports for the tuna 
processing industry. 
 
On the other hand, independent withdrawals and carry-over 
apply to 18 species for which there are substantial price 
differences in a single national market or between the 
regions. The relevant intervention prices are fixed 
independently by the POs. 
 
The implementation of intervention mechanisms involves the 
yearly adoption of: 
○ 1 Council Regulation fixing the guide prices and 
Community producer prices;  
○ 6 Commission Regulations fixing the different 
intervention parameters and the reference prices for 
those products which benefit from tariff reductions.  
 
The EAGF finances compen sation for the different 
intervention mechanisms.  
 
It should be noted that no intervention mechanism has ever 
been put in place for aquaculture products. ► Intervention is generally considered to have little 
impact on price stability and producers' incomes. This 
marginal impact is mainly due to the low amount of 
public funding for intervention mechanisms (less than 
0,2% of production value).  
► However, the different components of the price and 
intervention system are judged differently. The 
relevance of a price system is widely recognised, even 
though opinions differ on the relevance and impact of 
withdrawals and carry-over.  
► The EU price system, including guide prices, is 
considered by most stakeholders as a common 
reference for the sector as a default minimum price.  
► However, the EU guide price system does not reflect 
differences between different EU production areas and 
should be revised to reflect the" various market realities 
prevailing in the EU". 
► A majority of stakeholders recognises that there is 
limited economic information to respond to their 
expectations and needs. However, stakeholders 
including MS are reluctant to new obligations or costs 
for themselves resulting from the introduction of a 
Market Intelligence system. Access to economic 
information also raises some concerns in terms of 
 
 13Market interventions 
Description Evaluation 
confidentiality. 
 
Autonomous tariff policy  
Description Evaluation 
The analysis of the autonomous tariff policy is as follows: 
► The Suspensions and tariff quotas have ensured 
competitive supplies to certa in segments of the EU 
processing industry, which could maintain their 
activities and jobs; 
► These measures have not significantly affected the 
balance and prices of the ma in EU markets for fisheries 
and aquaculture products, hence not disrupting 
producers' interests 
► Whilst imports are recognised as necessary, a large 
majority of EU stakeholders emphasise the need to 
establish a level playing field for EU and imported 
products. 
Views of the stakeholders This regime aims to ensure st ability of supplies in order to 
enhance the competitiveness of  the EU processing industry 
while respecting the interests of the EU producer sector7.  
 
The regime is therefore limited to autonomous tariff 
suspensions and tariff quotas for certain raw materials 
intended for processing. The regime works as autonomous 
derogation to (lowering of) applicable Most Favoured 
Nation (MFN) tariffs at the EU border.  
 
The suspensions are established by 
• Article 28 and Annex VI to Council Regulation (EC) No 
104/2000 
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 introduces 
suspensions for certain industrial, agricultural and fishery 
products 
 
The current quota regime is laid down in Council Regulation 
(EC) No  1062/2009. It applies to the period 2010 to 2012. 
 
The level and coverage of autonomous tariff quotas is 
adapted every 3 years to the cu rrent needs of the processing 
sector, Autonomous suspensions remain unchanged for the 
duration of the Regulation.  
 
The granting of autonomous tariff suspensions and tariff 
quotas is subject to compliance of the relevant imported 
products with reference prices.  These prices are adopted 
annually by way of a Commission Regulation The EU processing industry supports maintaining the current 
system of autonomous tariff suspension and tariff quotas in 
order to guarantee a steady and competitive supply of raw 
materials to the EU processing industry.  
Suspensions should be allowed in case of structural supply 
shortages, while tariff quotas should be opened for products 
with insufficient EU production, bearing in mind the 
legitimate interests of EU producers. 
The issue of seeking fair competition between EU production 
and imports, i.e. "level playing field," has been extensively 
debated, including between EU institutions.  
Producers strongly believe that the EU should ensure that 
products imported into the EU meet the same requirements 
that apply to EU production in terms of environmental, 
social, health and quality standards. Processors want 
predictable, regular access to raw material at the cheapest 
price. Retailers want cheap products, whatever the origin. 
Reconciling these conflicting interests is one of the 
                                                 
7 The current quota regime for the pe riod 2010-2012 focuses on whitefish (cod, ha ke and substitute species), sensitive 
products (herring and tuna loins) and shrimps. In order to benefit from favourable tariff treatment, all quotas are to be 
used only for processing of fishery products.  
 
 14Autonomous tariff policy  
Description Evaluation 
objectives of a responsible Market Policy. 
 
 
      Marketing standards 
Description Evaluation 
 
 15The analysis of the implementation of common marketing 
standards is as follows: 
► Marketing standards and consumer information 
provisions are relevant in view of the diversity of EU 
markets as they have established a set of "minimum 
common rules." They have also provided wide 
flexibility by allowing MS and operators to go beyond 
them when considered relevant and necessary for the 
regulation of their specific markets; 
► Marketing standards have played an important role in 
measuring the quality of products (freshness) and 
facilitating marketing based on uniform standards; 
► Minimum marketing sizes have played an indirect role 
in preventing the marketing of juveniles. Some POs 
have established their own standards or have raised 
regulatory thresholds in order to achieve better returns 
on the market.  
Views of the stakeholders The common marketing standards apply to first sale of 
certain fisheries  products in the EU, whatever their origin 
(EU and imported products)8.  
 
When standards are defined, products must comply in order 
to be marketed for human consumption within the EU.  
 
Marketing standards for fresh /chilled fisheries products 
enable sorting products by freshness and size categories:  
• Freshness categories are adapted to the main groups of 
species and determined by or ganoleptic characteristics;  
• Size categories are usually set by weight. 
 
A sampling system is in place to facilitate the grading of 
small pelagic species.  
There are also standards for canned tuna9, sardines and 
sardine-type products10, including trade descriptions, 
market presentation and covering media.  
Marketing standards do not cover aquaculture products or 
frozen products.  
The purpose of these standards is to facilitate the internal 
market by defining harmonised commercial characteristics 
of products, and to enable uniform application of 
intervention mechanisms allo wing common prices for each 
product category to be established. Stakeholders consider the current set of marketing 
standards useful in achieving a standardised supply 
facilitating the functioning of the internal market for these 
products. 
Some inconsistencies between landing and minimum 
marketing sizes laid down in CFP and CMO regulations, 
have been highlighted and should be addressed. 
Future standards need to be clear, simple to follow, flexible 
and allow industry to self-regulate. Further consistency with 
the conservation policy should be envisaged. 
                                                 
8 The standards cover 47 species eligible for interv ention mechanisms by freshness and size categories. Freshness  is 
adapted to the main group of species (whitefish, bluefish, crustaceans…). Marketing sizes  are generally expressed by 
weight without prejudice to the minimum biological sizes expressed by length. For those species bearing both sizes, the minimum biological sizes in force prevail over the mini mum marketing sizes in all circumstances. There are also 
standards for canned products  (sardines, sardine-type products, tuna a nd bonito). They govern trade descriptions, 
market presentations, covering media and additional ingred ients. The standards for canned sardines had to be 
amended in 2003 and 2008 to bring the trade descriptions for sardines and sardine-type products in conformity with 
the relevant international standard, i.e. the Codex Alimentarius Standard  STAN94 and its 2007' revision. 
9  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 la ying down common marketing standards for preserved 
tuna and bonito 
10Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 layi ng down common marketing standards for preserved 
sardines and trade descriptions for pres erved sardines and sardine-type products 
 
 
 16 
Information to consumers 
Description Evaluation 
► Consumer information provisions are relevant insofar 
as they provide a harmonised minimum set of 
information relevant for the sector and consumers while 
leaving flexibility to add further information. However, 
the system can be improved in respect of information 
content and enforcement by MS. 
► The effect of the provisions  was affected by a mixed 
application depending on the MS as well as the 
organisation and effectiven ess of national controls. 
Views of the stakeholders Consumer information provisions in the current CMO 
concern fisheries products falli ng within Chapter 3 of the 
Combined Nomenclature (i.e. live, fresh, chilled, frozen, 
smoked, dried, salted, in brine, crustaceans and molluscs) 
offered for retail sale in the EU (either of EU origin or 
imported).  
 
These obligations do not apply to canned or processed 
products.  
 
The following information must be indicated by packaging or 
labelling at retail sale:  
  ● the commercial designation of the species established in 
each Member State 
  ● the production method (caught at sea, caught in 
freshwater or farmed) 
  ● the catch area for the products caught at sea (based on 
the FAO fishing areas) or a reference to the country of 
origin for the products caught in freshwater or farmed Industry and several MS consider that some provisions of the 
current legislation are useful and should remain (commercial 
name, production method: wild fish or aquaculture).  
Information to consumers is considered strategic for 
stakeholders. More precise information on the provenance of 
products and the extension of the scope of the regulation to 
all products and selling/consum ption places has been called 
for. 
Regarding voluntary information (such as ecolabelling) 
stakeholders recalled the roles of public authorities to ensure 
and control that accurate and transparent information are 
provided to EU consumers. Considering possible confusion 
and fraud on product allegation it ha s been argue in favour of 
establishing an appropriate legal framework at EU level. 
 
 
2.3. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy a nd interaction with the Market Policy 
The main objective of the reform of the CFP is to set  a smarter and greener policy i.e. primarily focusing on 
sustainable exploitation of the resources in a much more simplified and decentralised way.  
The problem definition of the current CFP has outlined the poor situation of many EU stocks. Solving this 
problem will require immediate action to ensure fi shing pressure becomes aligned with environmental 
sustainability. This is translated in the impact assessment for the reform  of the CFP in the content of 
different options which set out tools for achieving mort ality levels compatible with Maximum Sustainable 
Yield (MSY) within the timeframe of the reform. Challenges of aquaculture production should also be 
addressed to reduce the impact on environment. 
The CFP impact assessment concluded that consideri ng new objectives and instruments of the CFP a far 
reaching reform of the Market Policy was necessary.  Market oriented instruments should contribute 
directly or indirectly to the achievement of some of the main CFP objectives. 
The following chart presents the main objectives of th e reformed CFP as defined in its impact assessment 
for the possible or potential contribution of an EU Market Policy for fisheries and aquaculture products. 
This will be further elaborated in the options section. 
 
 
 17CFP objectives Possible contribut ion of a reformed market policy 
Environmental sustainability  
• To eliminate overfishing in the short 
term. To move away from production strategy based on volume:  
- Market measures leading to incr eased prices and added value of 
products  - Market incentives and premiu m for sustainable practices: 
certification (ecolabels), promotion, information to consumers…;  
• To reduce overcapacity and discards 
as much as possible.    No direct contribution to reduce overcapacity  
Accompanying market measures nece ssary to ensure treatment of  
landings of discards   
• To put in place a decision-making 
system consistent with long term sustainability, flexible and adaptable to local conditions Adapt intervention policy to local conditions 
• To improve responsibility and 
compliance by the industry.  Empowerment and co-management by producer organisations of 
access rights, production and marketing activities Facilitate partnerships for sust ainable production,  sourcing and 
consumption  
• To improve the availability of 
scientific advise and economic data Extend and disseminate market and economic analysis 
Economic sustainability  
• Increase the long-term resilience of 
the sector. Increase bargaining power of the production side (fisheries and 
aquaculture), improve anticipation, prevention and management of prices crisis  
• Reorient public financial support 
towards innovation, value added and marketing Contribute to improve market transpar ency and efficiency in view of 
optimising production value 
Social sustainability  
• To increase the quality of 
employment (wages, safety and working conditions)  Contribution mainly indirect on revenue: support added value of 
fisheries and aquaculture produc ts and competitiveness of the 
processing industry 
• To make it an attractive source of 
employment.  
• To give alternative development 
options to coastal communities.   
A better governance  
• Simplify the CFP Substantial reduction of legal frame work and administrative burden  
• Improve efficiency of public financial 
support Reorientation of financial support from fleet measures towards 
smart, green, innovative and market oriented measures 
• Foster regionalisation Set intervention prices at decentralised level 
A more efficient external dimension of 
the CFP  
• To improve international governance  
  
Support level playing fiel d conditions of trade 
 
 
The Market Policy is also complementary to the r ecently adopted Regulation to fight against Illegal 
Unregulated and Unreported fishing and strengthen the implementation of the CFP and its control11. 
                                                 
11   Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 to  prevent, deter and eliminate illegal,  unreported and unr egulated fishing 
that impose a catch certificate for fishery products imported to the EU. Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 
 
 182.4. Who is affected by the Market Policy and how? 
The Market Policy reform impacts to a different extent  all stakeholders in the fisheries and aquaculture 
sector from production to final consumption. The key i ssues for the various types of stakeholders are set 
out in Table 3. 
Table 3: Key issues for stakeholders 
Stakeholder Description Key interests Key instruments in   market policy 
Production sector 
in the EU EU catches and aquaculture 
producers Maintaining activities in production 
areas; improve profitability and competitiveness, strengthening sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture products (FAPS). Organisation of the sector: POs & 
IBOs, interventions on the market, marketing standards, information to consumers, markets analysis, quality, promotion 
Dependent businesses (fish wholesaler)  Obtaining supplies and some 
primary processing, presentation and logistics services Maintaining profitability: 
predictability and access to (mainly fresh) raw material in required volumes, range of species and quality IBOs, marketing standards, market 
analysis, quality, promotion; information to consumers 
Processing sector Processing raw materials both 
imported (from third countries and caught by EU vessels in Fisheries Partnership Agreements) and produced within EU waters Maintaining profitability and 
competitiveness; predictability and access to raw material. IBO, preferential trade instruments, 
marketing standards, information to consumers, market analysis, quality, promotion 
Third countries Exporters to the EU of raw or 
processed. fisheries and aquaculture products  Supplying the growing and profitable 
EU (world’s largest). Economic development, exports and contribution to global fishery governance. Compliance with health rules IBO, marketing standards, 
preferential trade instruments, information to consumers, market analysis 
Retailers and restaurants Final sellers: supermarkets, 
fishmongers, commercial and collective restaurants Predictability of sourcing, stability of 
prices and quality, labelling Interbranch organisations, marketing 
standards, information to consumers, markets analysis, quality, promotion 
Consumers Final buyers in stores or restaurants  Availability, cost and quality, 
information and labelling (what am I buying?). Information to consumers, market 
analysis, quality, promotion 
NGOs and the public NGOs advocating sustainable 
management of fisheries & sustainable development of aquaculture. Consumers’ organisations want food security with good quality fish at reasonable price.  The wider public has an interest in 
and concern for sustainability of fishing and farming activities fishing and the marine environment. Increasingly interested in nutritional quality of fish (essential fatty acids).  IBOs, marketing standards, 
information to consumers, market analysis, quality, promotion 
 
2.5. EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products 
It is appropriate to analyse how the EU market has evolved in the last decade, as well as how it may 
develop in the coming years  in terms of supply and demand.  This is particularly so given that more than ten 
years have elapsed since the last reform of the EU Market Policy12 (see Annex 6). 
The EU is the first market in the world for fisher ies and aquaculture products in value (55 billion euros 
                                                                                                                                                                
of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the 
CFP 
12 Study on supply and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm  
 
 19representing 12 millions tons). The demand for fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU is influenced 
by a combination of various factors: economic (pri ce and purchasing power), health and nutritional values, 
quality in the broadest sense (organoleptic features, freshness and safety guarantees) and increased interests 
for environmental impact and product provenan ce. The trends may be summarised as follows: 
¾ EU deficit in fisheries and aquaculture products increases: EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57% to 
35%. 
¾ Retail concentration increased and accounts betw een 55% and 85% of fish sales in EU MS. 
¾ Features of changes in fish consumption in the EU  
o Consumption growth in most of EU countries13 with a strong increase for salmon and tropical 
prawns and new species14; at the same time there has b een a decreased demand for some 
traditional products (e.g. herring, plaice). Strong growth in the out-of-home catering sector. 
o Fresh fish continues to dominate in the majority of MS15 but changes are observed in qualitative 
and economic expectations of consumers (more fish  fillets and less whole fish, ready to eat and 
processed food, new consumers for new products w ithout strong fishy taste and smell and at a 
low price). Innovations in terms of presentation and packaging. 
 
2.6. Cross cutting issues  
Fish is a natural renewable resource,  an internationally traded commodity  and a food product. It is therefore 
affected by: 
¾ Environmental Policy  and in particular Sustainable Pr oduction and Consumption policy, EU 
Ecolabel16 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive17 
¾ Agricultural Policy , in particular reforms of the agricultu re CMO, especially for fruit and vegetables 
which share common features and challenges ( see Annex 5), Regulation on agricultural product 
quality schemes, (draft regulation to adopted18),  organic farming rules for aquaculture products19. 
¾ Research Policy  in particular in support of innovation a nd research in aquaculture production and in 
post-harvest areas of fisheries  
¾ Health, safety and consumers’ Policy : food safety, labelling, nutrition and health claims, Regulation 
                                                 
13 Consumption in the EU increased by  nearly two million tonnes between 1999 a nd 2007. This trend is particularly 
strong in traditional markets such as France where an increase of 5kg/year/inha bitant has occurred in the last ten 
years. Likewise in several Central a nd Eastern European MS, there has been a noticeable increase in the level of 
consumption. Growth in EU consumption is expected to continue at some +0.5% per year between now and 
2030, representing some additi onal 1,500,000 tonnes by 2030.  
14 EU markets are open to the arrival of new fish species, many of them substituting traditional species which have 
become scarce. Examples of this ar e Alaska Pollock in the 80s, Nile perch from Lake Victoria in the 90s, 
Pangasius from Vietnam since the mid 2000s. 
15 In particular in Southern European countries (Spain, France and Italy) where more than 50% of fisheries and 
aquaculture products are consumed in this form. Incr ease consumption of fresh fish in Eastern European 
countries is registered. 
16 Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel 
17 Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy 
18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L exUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0733:FIN:en:PDF 
19 detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and s eaweed production were adopted in August 2009 (Commission 
Regulation 710/2009) 
 
 20on information to consumers on food products  
¾ Trade Policy: WTO discussions on tariff and subsidies, bila teral and regional Free Trade Agreements 
(including trade and sustainable development, tari ff liberalisation, preferential rules of origin…).  
¾ EU Development Policy  in view of ensuring coherence be tween EU policies and development 
objectives as referred to in article 208 of the TFUE. 
 In addition the Market Policy for FAPs should be  fully compatible with the aim of the “EU 2020 
objectives” 
20  
SECTION 3  PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION  
The main problems with the current policy have b een assessed and are summarised under five headings in 
Table 4 and subsequently discussed in detail in this section.  
Table 4: The five main problem areas of the current CMO and their underlying drivers 
Problems  Underlying drivers 
Limited contribution of the 
EU Market Policy to 
sustainability of production   ►  Many EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way 
 ►  Limited market incentives to exploit th e resources  in a sustainable fashion  
 ►  Wrong policy signals (support to withdrawals, weakness of POs)  
Deterioration of market 
position of EU production   ►  Limited or decreased EU production opportunities (fisheries and aquaculture) 
 ►  Fragmentation of the fishery and aquaculture production side and strong 
concentration of demand 
 ► Lack of competitiveness of EU operators in an increasingly globalised market
Inability to anticipate and 
manage market fluctuations   ►  Lack of predictability of the EU supply in volume and quality 
 ►  Lack of anticipation of market demand by EU fishery and aquaculture 
producers  
 ►  High volatility of first sale prices  
Under exploited market 
potential   ►  Marketing standards outdated and too rigid (business to business) 
 ►  Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices:  
Complex framework and 
burdensome implementation   ►  Complex legal architecture and inconsistency of instruments 
 ►  Burdensome management  
 
3.1. Limited contribution of the EU Market Policy to sustainability of production  
3.1.1.  Numerous EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way 
European fish stocks have been ove rfished for decades and the fishing fl eets remain too large for available 
resources. 88% of Community stocks were fished be yond MSY in 2009: this means that these stocks could 
increase and generate more economic output if they were left for only a few years under less fishing 
pressure21 . The outcome has been a continuous decrease in the amounts of seafood fished from Europe’s 
                                                 
20 A European strategy for smart, sustainable and incl usive growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and 
innovation, promoting a more resour ce efficient, greener and more co mpetitive economy, fostering a high-
employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion.  
21 30 % of these stocks are outside safe biological limits, which means that they may not be able to replenish ; See the 
IAR on the Reform of the CFP. 
 
 21waters. Consumers, processing and retail sectors incr easingly share these concerns and require guarantees 
that the fish they consume and sell originat es from well-managed and sustainable fisheries.22 
 
3.1.2.  Limited market incentives 
Until the late 1990s, there were very limited market premiums for sustainable practices or no market 
sanctions for potential or real unsustainable practices.  Environmental sustainability was not particularly 
well supported by market players i.e. purchasers and consumers. Since then, there has been a growing 
interest in calling for increased sustainability of fisheries and in the development of eco-labels. 
Commitments of processors and retailers to sust ainable sourcing and sustainable fishing labelling 
progressively increased in the last decade. Since 2008, large retailing companies in the USA and in the EU 
started publicly setting targets for sustainable sourcing23. Certified and labelled su stainable products have 
registered significant market penetration in the EU. Organic certified aquaculture production is also a very 
recent development24. The increased awareness of sustainability i ssues of marine resources has lead to the 
deterioration of the image of the sector.  
3.1.3.  Wrong policy signals 
Producer Organisations have been granted responsib ility to manage market interventions. However, 
withdrawal mechanisms leading to destruction of  fish products, even of limited level and decreasing 
intensity, cannot be politically and economically justifie d in the context of scarcity and fragility of the EU 
resources and growing demand on the EU market. The effectiveness of the CMO was conditioned by internal and external inconsistencies, due to the diversity 
of instruments (i.e. conservation and market instruments,  2 financial instruments) and  lack of incentives to 
foster sustainable fishing. 
 
3.2.  Deterioration of market position of EU production  
3.2.1.  Limited or decreased EU production o pportunities (fisheries and aquaculture)  
The CFP, which was reformed in 2002, and the various management instruments (quota, efforts, technical 
measures etc.) did not prevent the continuous deteriora tion of fishing stocks in EU waters. Consequently, 
fishing opportunities defined in terms of total allowa ble catches have continuously decreased for most of 
species targeted in EU waters. In this context over capacity has continued to be a burden on profitability 
(high fixed costs) and a risk for additional pressure  on stocks. The CMO did not contribute to providing 
market opportunities and stability for EU production so as to get more value from stagnating or decreasing volume of production, while encouraging good practices.   EU fisheries production has registered a steady decrease  in the last decade (- 2 million Metric Tons -MT). 
Over a million MT of this is linked to the reduc tion in Danish industrial fishing, essentially for non-
human use. As regards catches for human consumption,  demersal fish landings have fallen more sharply 
(-36%) than those of pelagic fish (-21%). EU aquaculture production
25, has not made up for the reduction 
in catch. Its production stabilised overall betw een 1996 and 2008. Freshwater aquaculture (-10%) 
                                                 
22 Green paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy - COM(2009)163 final 
23 Commitments of large processing, catering and retails comp anies in particular in UK, Germany, France, USA … to 
increase their sourcing with sustainably certified products  
24 Detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and s eaweed production were adopted in August 2009 (Commission 
Regulation 710/2009)  
25 With a production of 1.3 million tonnes in 2006. 
 
 22declined, while saltwater aquaculture in creased significantly (+13% between 1996 and 2008)26 mainly 
due to expansion of seabass and sea bream farming in the Mediterranean.  
3.2.2.  Fragmentation of the production side and strong concentration of demand 
Fundamental drivers of fragmentation of the production si de are linked to the variety and complexity of the 
sector. EU producers catch or farm over 500 different species (fish, molluscs and crustaceans), each of them or a group of them having some specific features in terms of availability, seasonality, production modes both for fishing (metiers; gear, fishing patterns) and farming. This fish is brought ashore at a large 
number of landing sites (around 1000 for IT and FR alone).  Likewise fish gets sold at a large number of 
sales sites (some 400 auctions) and via different modes (direct sales, contract with processors, restaurant, 
wholesalers, etc.).  
Production volume register wide vari ations depending of the species: the first ten species represent some 
50% of total EU production. In DE and NL, some 90%  of landings are made up of 10 species, there is a 
greater range in FR and IT where the comparative figur e is 50% to 60 % made up by the top ten. This also 
means that a large number of species ar e mainly limited to local markets. 
Such diversity and complexity limit selling capacities and bargaining power vis à vis purchasers’ demand. 
In general terms compared with agriculture production,  with its much more c oncentrated species base for 
livestock, but more diverse fruit and vegetable producti on, little has been achieved to foster and structure 
producer cooperatives or collective actions to market  fisheries and aquaculture products. Unlike fruit and 
vegetable POs, fishery and aquaculture POs have not fully succeeded in grouping supply. This appears 
particularly important when considering the structural concentration of retail. Supe rmarkets have a majority 
share of fisheries and aquaculture product retail distribu tion that continues to grow in all major EU markets 
(55% in SP, 70% in IT, 80% in FR, DE and UK). Nowadays, this growth essentially comes from 
distribution of fresh products, given that superm arkets already totally dominate frozen and canned 
segments. The progressive change towards large retail networks has led to concentrate the offer to EU 
consumers on a few high range products (salmon, cod and an increased share of aquaculture products (sea 
bass, sea bream)
27. In 2008, the first ten species concentrated 60% of consumption in the EU (live weight 
equivalent)28. The remaining part is very much linked to national and regional ava ilability and consumption 
habits. The diversity described makes it difficult to  encompass all the different aspects comprehensively 
within a one single EU policy. 
3.2.3.  Lack of competitiveness of EU operators in an increasingly globalised market29 
EU producers have not been able to provide the grow ing EU market with adequate volume of products. As 
a consequence EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57%  to 35% between 1996 and 2006. The EU market is 
now supplied from 25% from EU fisheries production;  10% from EU aquaculture and 65% from imports. 
With the EU demand continuing to steadily increase, imports of fisheries and aquaculture products are 
broadly recognised as essential to satisfy the needs of the EU market. The trend is for the growing amount 
of imports to be concentrated on species for which there is a deficit at EU level and in particular for white 
fish (cod, hake and haddock) whose deficit reaches 90%. In addition, to the reduction in availability in EU 
fisheries, the evolution of demand in the EU although globally increasing, has lead to a reduction of consumption of some traditional species such as herri ng (consumption decreased by nearly half per capita 
                                                 
26 Aquaculture production in the EU is dominated by the 3 large Mediterranean countries (Spain, France and Italy) 
and the United Kingdom, which between them account for two thirds of EU production. During the past few years 
alone, production of new marine finfish species has increas ed by 60% for turbot, 37% for sea bass and 24% for sea 
bream. 
27 Half of UK consumption is concentrated on three sp ecies: salmon, cod and tuna against 25% in the EU. 
28 Study of Ikmes for Ofimer (now FranceAgriMer): formation des prix sur les produits aquatiques  
29 The proportion of world fishery production traded internationally (live-weight equivalent) was an estimated 37 
percent in 2009 representing above US$100 billi on. (FAO Sub Committee on fish trade 2010) 
 
 23in DE and POL) and plaice. Examples of recovered EU  fisheries show that the additional supplies do not 
automatically lead to recover its original market. On ce market share is lost, even in a positive context of 
growing demand, re-entering the market is neither au tomatic nor straightforward and a specific marketing 
strategy is required.  
Table 5: Case study:  the reintroduction of the Bay of Biscay anchovy 
 
The market liberalisation for fisheries and aquaculture products is particularly advanced by means of the 
EU Trade Policy. If the tariff liberalisation has c ontributed to ease supply to the EU market, it has 
contributed to the deterioration of market conditi ons for some products of interest for EU producers 
("substitution effect": imported new and cheaper sp ecies becoming proxy for look alike traditional and 
more expensive species, impact on first sale prices and revenues).  
Competitiveness is also very affected  by other im portant regulatory and socio-economic factors (labour 
cost, cost of compliance with conservation, monito ring, control and surveillance measures, health and 
safety regulations, etc.) on which the CMO has little or no influence. The CMO impact on competitiveness 
has been mixed and limited to upstream stages of th e value chain. On the contrary autonomous trade 
arrangements with third countries appear to have ha d direct effects on competitiveness, but only for the 
processing industry. 
3.3. Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations  
3.3.1.  Lack of predictability of the EU supply  
Fishing, more than other food production sector, is char acterised by uncertainty with regard to production 
conditions (weather hazards, seasonality) and access (chang es in quotas linked to stocks conditions) which 
give rise to big fluctuations in supply. Aquaculture , on the other hand is generally able to supply the 
product demanded on a regular basis. 
Producer involvement in production and marketing pl anning according to market demand has remained 
weak in the capture sector. To date, tasks carried out  by POs have been limited to planning and regulation 
of fishing activities (sometimes dealing with quota mana gement) rather than marketing activities. It has The Bay of Biscay anchovy fishery was closed for during five years (2005-2010) due to risk of collapse. This has 
deprived Spanish and French fishermen from a particularly lucrative traditional market (around 2.5 € / kg at first 
sale and 15 and 20 € / kg in Madrid and Barcelona markets). The first catches following the reopening in 2009 
brought small fish (30-40 fish per kg.) of little commercial interest, sold at a price which was just above the 
withdrawal price.  For the full year 2010 the mean price for the overall catch was around 20 to 25% below the price 
which was available before the closure.  
Average price at first sale for Anchovy  ( Engraulis encrasicolus ) 
1.0001.5002.0002.5003.000
2003 2004
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009
2010Euro / tonne
Average price Guide price
Closure of the Bay of Biscaye anchovy 
 
The problem is more market oriented  now one than about resources. Buyers for processing and for the fresh 
market had switched to new sources of supply from th ird countries of good quality for an attractive price 
(Morocco, Argentina, Chile and Peru) which were all o ffering mature anchovies. The Spanish and French POs, 
though previously on opposite sides in the conflict over this resource got together and started to work on two key 
issues:  fishing less and larger fish which the market preferred and medium term business strategy via a label to 
allow the Ba y of Bisca y anchovies to be differentiated.
 
 24often been observed that the fisheries sector, and to a lesser extent the aquaculture sector "do not sell their 
products, but that people buy them." Potential buyers have no or late information on volumes available or 
place of landings. This leads to multiplicity of interm ediary operators in char ge of grouping landings and 
providing an adequate range of species. 
Table 6: Case study: management of cod supply 
 
3.3.2.  Lack of anticipation of market demand by EU fishery and aquaculture producers  
The fisheries and aquaculture sector is characterised by  difficulties for producers stakeholders to anticipate, 
prevent and manage crises and market fluctuations main ly due to lack of market knowledge. Despite a very 
dynamic intra-EU trade in fisheries and aquaculture  products and high level of  imports, information on 
market developments (demand, third countries compe titors …) is not available to most producers limiting 
therefore their ability to adapt catch plans.  
Still there are some structural trends in the EU mark ets that can be anticipated . Clear differences in price 
elasticity of demand exist between species and markets.  Price elasticity is strong for those species which 
have a good image and which are traditional favourites (suc h as monkfish, cod, scallops etc.). On the other 
hand, price elasticity is low for other staple speci es which are purchased by “traditional consumers”, these 
include fresh, smaller and more fragile products. 
Coordination within the sector is limited. The po ssible support of the current CMO to Interbranch 
Organisations (IBOs) has been very seldom used. IBOs are made of representatives of production (fisheries or aquaculture), trade and processing. In 2007 four IBOs  were recognised in three MS: two in SP (one in 
the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in FR (aqu aculture) and one in IT (both catch and aquaculture). 
This may be due to the complex and often conf licting relations between producers and downstream 
operators, the low level of EU supply to the processing industry and the different concentration of upstream 
and downstream operators. Better orga nisation of production appears to be  a pre requisite for functioning 
Interbranch coordination. Such deve lopments are being observed in some MS: in Spain  and France in 
March 2010.   In 2009, following the implementation of a recovery plan for cod, quotas for cod were reduced for French POs. This 
situation resulted in a "race for quotas" among French fishermen. In order to be su re to have their share of cod quotas, 
fishermen targeted cod as from January and landed 15% more cod during the first quarter in 2009 than in 2008. As in the 
meantime cod landings were abundant in Norway and Iceland and cheap imports of fresh cod from these countries were 
available on the EU market, price for cod at first sale dr opped by 25%. Moreover, French quotas were rapidly exhausted 
and fishermen were not able to deliver much cod as from Ap ril, whilst demand for cod increased during that period of the 
year. In 2010, POs decided to limit cod landings during the beginning of the year, which led to better first sale prices, 
similar to 2008 and kept more quotas for the rest of the year.  
0100200300400500600700800
Jan
Feb
MarAprJanFebMar
Apr
Jan
FebMar
Apr00,511,522,533,544,5
Volumes
pricetonnes €/kg
2008 2009 2010 
First sale price and volumes o f cod a t French auctions (source FranceA grimer ).
 
 25Table 7: Case studies Nephrops: meeting the demand 
 
3.3.3.  High volatility of first sale prices  
First sale prices of fresh fish are generally character ised by significant volatility linked to the inherent 
fluctuations in landings and the ge neral low level of contracting in the sector i.e. agreeing on price, 
volumes and quality in advance. The daily pricing system  of auctions facilitates the sale of a wide variety 
of products from numerous different species but w ith limited volumes. Producers often have limited 
advance knowledge of possible sale prices and therefore do not adapt their production strategies (species targeted, volume and timing and place of landing etc.). 
Prices of imported products appear to be much more stable compare to EU production, notably since they 
are mainly linked to major frozen commodities coming from aquaculture or major fisheries. Important 
seasonal prices variations also characterise catches of  some of the large commodities such as tuna and 
salmon. There is strong seasonality in nephrops demand which is p eaking in July/August and for Christmas. Nevertheless, 
nephrops landings in France are traditionally the most a bundant in May/June, which has a depressing impact on 
prices. The inadequacy between landings and demand is so im portant that part of the landings have to be withdrawn 
every year during several weeks, which is both very costly for POs and not positive in terms of resource 
management. Traditional annual catch plans between various species and métiers prevent so far optimising value of 
nephrops landings over the year. 
Withdrawal priceWeekly variations of quantities, average price and 
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007
020406080100120140160180
0,005,0010,0015,0020,0025,0030,0035,00
Volume landed Withdrawals Average pricetonnes €/kgWeekly variations of quantities, average price and 
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007
020406080100120140Weekly variations of quantities, average price and 
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007
020406080100120140160180
0,005,0010,0015,0020,0025,0030,0035,00
Volume landed Withdrawals Average pricetonnes €/kg
Withdrawal price
 
Source : FranceAgrime r
 
 26Table 8: Case study: Evolution of North Sea Saithe price at first sale 
 
As for policy drivers, overall, the market interventi on policy overall  had little impact on first sale prices. 
The effect of intervention on price stability in the l ast decade has been restrict ed to a safety net which 
avoids excessive price fluctuations in some local mark ets (in particular for pelagic species). Interventions 
on the market do not prevent volatile prices but may only correct sudden price falls. In addition, since EU enlargement to 27 MS, EU guide prices for certain speci es have been above first sale prices. This requires 
PO intervention for all quantities landed of such a speci es in some new MS. On the other hand, in MS with 
higher average prices, market intervention is impossibl e, including in the case of a real market crash. Local 
or regional realities are therefore not reflected in the current system. It should be noted that the market 
interventions policy in the fisheries and aquaculture sector has been historically very limited in terms of 
budget allocated and is the most modest in relation to other agricultural CMO's. 
Table 9: EAGF spending and production value 2005 fo r CMO of agricultural and fisheries products  
Products Expenses EAGF
millions of euros  Production value 
millions of euros  % FEOGA / 
production value 
Fishing and aquaculture            13               8 000  0,2% 
Hops            13                243  5,3% 
Seeds           109                932  11,7% 
Pigs, eggs and poultry           124              49 444  0,3% 
Rice           436                522  83,5% 
Textile plants           972               1 265  76,8% 
Wine         1 267              14 870  8,5% 
Sugar (beet)         1 793               5 875  30,5% 
Fruit and vegetables         1 748              67 101  2,6% 
Sheep and goat meat         1 837               5 394  34,1% 
Olive oil         2 311               5 237  44,1% 
Milk         2 755              43 500  6,3% 
Cattle         8 176              25 156  32,5% 
Cereals         17 812              28 063  63,5% 
Sources: EAGF and Eurostat 
 Saithe is one of the major species landed in the EU for human consumption. Despite an overall stability between 
2006 and 2008, first sale price of Saithe registered large fluctuations on a weekly basis. The average price over the 
period was around 1.00 €/kg, with sudden drops to 0.50 €/kg and sudden increase above 1.50 €/kg and even once 
to 2.70 €/kg. On a monthly basis, the price is much less volatile. ( source: FranceAgrimer; Hanstholm auction- DK)  
0,000,501,001,502,002,503,00
Denmark
France€/kg
2006 2007 2008 
 
 273.4. Under exploited market potential in the EU 
3.4.1.  EU marketing standards partially outdated  
In terms of policy drivers, neither the common mark eting standards nor the quality improvement plans had 
direct effects on product quality, the latter being lim ited to the submission of only four plans. The 
marketing standards however played an important role  in the grading of freshness according to harmonised 
quality standards. Overall, quality has improved over the last decade but this has mainly been due to other 
factors such as market requirements, modernisation of the fleet, Financial Instrument for Fisheries 
Guidance (FIFG) investments, and private initiatives. Some inconsistencies betw een landing and marketing 
minimum sizes defined in the CFP and the CMO have also been identified. 
Distance selling and e-commerce are currently cons trained by difficulties in obtaining homogenous and 
precise information on products characteristics. 
3.4.2.  Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices 
The consumer information provisions in the CMO provide a harmonised minimum set of compulsory 
information30, while leaving flexibility to add further inform ation. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the 
provisions was affected by a mixed application depending on type of product and MS (insufficient 
controls in certain MS and a number of infringeme nts). Knowledge about fisheries products progressed 
overall but the effect of the legislation was indirect a nd relatively marginal. External factor played a more 
important role, i.e. information campaigns, co mmunication by NGOs or professional organisations, 
marketing information. Existing mandatory information is characterised by limited scope and is very broad. There is large 
consensus that information on provenance defined by  FAO area (eg North East Atlantic, Mediterranean 
Sea) is much too broad to provide useful information.  In addition a large part of products consumed in the 
EU are exempted from these labelling obligations in particular canned and pr ocessed products (chapter 
1604 and 1605 of the combined nomenclature), fisheries and aquaculture products sold in restaurants and 
catering.  In addition, enquiries and information from MS and NGOs  demonstrated that application of the existing 
regulation has not prevented consumers being misl ed as regards the species offered for sale, its 
provenance or its sustainability. There have been calls for action from the Commission in the area of 
environmental claims.  EU consumers are more and more aware as a result of extensive media coverage (according to some estimations second only to the topic of climate change) of the challenges that marine resources are facing and they want to have more information as shoppers. Is  this fish fresh or defrosted? Where exactly was it 
caught? Was it fished or produced sustainably or traded  fairly? Despite this, the industry lacks collective 
or common actions to communicate the information th ey increasingly expect to receive to make more 
informed choices.  Some recent voluntary developments are being ob served (more precise information on provenance, 
ecolabels
31 etc.). Still, compared with other food products  differentiation strategies and merchandising is 
very limited. Quality marks such as Protected D esignation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical 
Indication (PGI), or other such as Label Rouge are only of marginal interest to the sector judging by uptake 
                                                 
30 Commercial name, production method (catch or aquaculture), provenance (FAO catch area or country of 
production for aquaculture products. Some marketing st andards for canned products (tuna and bonito) provide 
guidance for labelling of these products. 
31 For instance, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification, have registered a steady increase, driven by 
Northern European countries so far, and large retail ch ains. Over 6% of fishery products sold in the EU are 
certified in a sustainable fishing programme. 
 
 28and branding except for some processed products. Regiona l quality labels and bra nds are being developed 
in some countries (SP, FR). However, these quality la bels have little recognition outside their countries. 
 
3.5. Complex framework and bur densome implementation 
3.5.1.  Complex legal architecture 
Within the CFP, the legal framework of the current CMO includes 4 Council Regulations, and 23 
implementing Commission Regulations (see Annex 1). Moreover , the yearly running of the CMO requires 
the adoption of a Council Regulation fixing guide pr ices with six concomitant Commission Regulations. 
 
3.5.2.  Multiplicity and inconsistency of instruments 
Minimum landing sizes (expressed in length) are defined in the conservation policy and in the CMO 
minimum marketing sizes (expressed in weight) are defined by CMO. They are not always consistent which leads to implementation and control difficulties. Financial support to withdrawal is not compatible 
with a conservation policy.  Financial support to marketing (promotion, quality, less popular species, etc.) are eligible to EFF and 
therefore decided by MS within their operationa l programme. However, there is no link with CMO 
instruments focused on improving marketing of their products by POs.  The Market Policy uses two different financial inst ruments: the EAGF and the EFF with two different 
financial management instruments (central direct management for EAFG and shared management for 
EFF) (see Annex 1). The duplication of financial instruments supporting market measures makes it difficult for POs to find a swift and efficient way to  fund their activities (intervention and planning). In 
addition, although some initiatives for marketing of fi sheries and aquaculture products are relevant at 
transnational level (same species, consumption areas…) existing EU instruments do not make it possible to support them.   
3.5.3.  Burdensome management 
The complexity of the legal framework involves some  difficulties in its day-to-day implementation. A 
significant administrative burden for POs and public authorities result to the numerous notification requirements due to the different current intervention mechanisms.   The double funding of the Market Policy (EAGF and EFF) with different administrative procedures, entail an additional burden to administra tions and beneficiaries of the aids. 
 
3.6. The right for the EU to act  
According to Article 3 (1d) of the Treaty of the F unctioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European 
Union has exclusive competence for the conservation of  marine biological resources under the CFP. Article 
4 (2d) TFEU stipulates that the EU has shared co mpetences for the other components of the CFP. These 
provisions determine the scope of action as regards what  needs to be addressed at the level of the EU and 
what room remains for MS to act. They also affect the form of the EU action, in terms of choice of 
instrument. Market measures under the CMO fall within  the scope of Article 4(2d) TFEU, and therefore it 
is necessary to justify the measures with re gard to the subsidiarity principle. 
The establishment of a Market Policy at EU level is essen tial to achieve the internal market in fisheries and 
aquaculture products and to ensure fair competition. Th e respect of the subsidiarity principle requires that 
MS and economic operators should enjoy a high degree of autonomy in the application of different 
mechanisms pertaining to the Market Policy. 
The CMO was created to achieve the objectives laid dow n in Article 39 of the TFEU. There is also a need 
to focus on sustainable exploitation of fishing resources and better fisheries governance. 
 
 29Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 establishing a Co mmon Market Organisation in fisheries and 
aquaculture products does not contain any specific provision for its revision by a given deadline. Obligations to evaluate the existing legislation and shortcomings identifie d, together with the links between 
Market and Conservation policies, within the framewo rk of the CFP reform, represent an opportunity to 
revisit the relevance of its objectives and instruments. In  addition, there is a need to align the CMO with the 
new framework set out in the Lisbon Treaty. 
S
ECTION 4  OBJECTIVES  
4.1. General objectives 
The future Market Policy should contribute and st rengthen the CFP objectives of managing resources, 
giving rise to fishing and aquaculture activities which would be run in a much more sustainable manner 
(economic, social and environmental). The specific objectives for each problem area are outlined in Table 
10 and discussed in the following texts. 
Table 10: Specific objectives for the main problems identified 
Problems  Specific objectives 
Limited contribution of the EU Market Policy to 
sustainability of production  Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable 
production practices   
Deterioration of market position of EU production Improve market position of EU production  
Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations  Better connect EU production to the  EU  market  
Under exploited market potential Enhance market potential of EU products 
Complex framework and burdensome implementation Support better governance and simplification 
 
4.2. Specific objectives 
4.2.1.  Reinforced market incentives to support  sustainable production practices  
Environmental sustainability is a precondition fo r economic and social sustainability. Market 
development and policy should contribute to this objec tive by bringing value to sustainable practices and 
restricting access to unsustainable products.   EU producers (fisheries and aquaculture) within PO's  are on the coal face of production, day to day 
resource management and market issues. They are co re stakeholders with a potentially strong role in 
consistent implementation of various components of  the CFP. Their role, responsibility and mandate 
should be reviewed in line with the objectives of th e reform of the CFP in order to direct production 
activities towards sustainability. Other operators upstream  in the sector should also be targeted so as to 
become more committed and responsible for sustainability of their sourcing. In this context, marketing of 
sustainable production should be encouraged. 
 
4.2.2.  Improve market position of EU production 
While considering the structural constraints and un certainties presented in Section 3, there is space for 
improvement in the way EU producers manage thei r production activities and put their products onto the 
market. Addressing market imperfections and chang es, as well as organisational matters, leads to the 
following operational objectives:  
• Improve producer activities by grouping supply and better marketing their products (first sale) 
• Increase competitiveness of EU production ( quality, innovation and added value)  
• Reinforce bargaining power of producers  
 
 30• Improve level playing field conditions  of EU production vis à vis imports 
• Prevent circumvention of conservation measures by imported fish products 
 
4.2.3.  Better connect the EU production to the market 
Structural market changes and short term fluctuations  should be better reflected in producers’ strategies. 
From an operational point of view, this supports th e development of market knowledge and analysis on 
the demand side and on competing supplies for the fishery and aquaculture producers in view of 
improving and adapting planning of their producti on. Improvement of management abilities would 
contribute to the achievement of this objective. As far as coordination along the marketing chain is 
concerned, increased transparency of markets s hould facilitate supply mee ting demand and enhance 
policy decision making. A complete review of the ma rket intervention policy is needed on this account.  
The volatility of first sale prices can be reduced by  improving conditions for placing POs’ products on the 
market and by ensuring that production is planned and adjusted to demand in terms of quality and 
quantity. POs would more effectively concentrate th e supply and marketing of the products of their 
members. 
 
4.2.4.  Enhance market potential of EU products 
The functioning of the internal market for fisheries and aquaculture products is suboptimal in particular 
due to information failure. From a business to busin ess perspective and taking into account the increased 
distant buying and potentialities of e-commerce, ade quate and precise products specifications (freshness, 
grading etc) should be more easily available to pur chasers. The comparative advantages of EU production 
(freshness, local, variety etc.) could be better expl oited with more differen tiation and merchandising. 
Finally EU consumers have the right to be inform ed with more precise and reliable information to 
reinforce confidence in fishery and aquaculture products.  
4.2.5.  Support better governance and simplification 
The desired objective in terms of legal framework shoul d be to strengthen consistency with the reformed 
CFP. The current CMO should be integrated as one "C hapter" into the new single basic regulation on the 
CFP. It is also necessary to adapt the CMO to the new framework set out by the TFEU. 
 The existing provisions and instruments shoul d be reviewed, simplified and clarified. 
 Without pre-judging decision on the future EU fi nancial framework, the Market Policy should be 
supported in the context of a new financial fund to be implemented within the reformed CFP. 
 The administrative burden and stakeholder's obliga tions in implementing, monitoring and controlling 
Market Policy should be reduced at the most adequate level.  
 
31 4.3. Intervention logic  
The links between the specific objectives and th e policy tools can be summarised as follows: 
 
          
 
   
Empowerment and 
co-management of 
fishing activities  
Level playing field of 
trade Bargaining power of  
the production side (FAPs )
Extend and 
disseminate market and 
economic analysis Mimimun sizes , etc. Intervention price  
at decentralised level 
 + storage aid 
Market premium for  
sustainable practices an dcertificationAnticipation, prevention and management 
of crisis
Competitiveness  of EU FAPs  
 (production and processing) Reduction / elimination of discards + 
treatment of their com pulsor y landin gs
Extension of mandatory + 
voluntary information to 
consumers InterbranchReinforced market incentives to support 
sustainable production  practices 
 (fishery and aquaculture)  
Marketing standards  Improve market position of EU production  
(fishery and aquaculture)  
Better connect the EU production to the EU 
market (fishery and aquaculture)  
Enhance market potential of EU products 
(fishery and aquaculture)  Production (grouping 
supply) + Market 
planning SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 
Indirect impact
Direct im pactInformation to consumer  Organisation of the sector  
( POs, IBOs)  
Market Intervention   
Autonomous tariff policy  
EU Market Observatory  OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVESOPERATIONAL TOOLS POLICY TOOLS 
 
 
32 SECTION 5: POLICY OPTIONS  
On the basis of evaluations conducted, stakeholders  views, specific objectives defined and policy tools 
identified, four options have been analysed. 
¾ Option 1  : Continuation of the current Common Ma rket Organisation (hereafter "Status quo") 
¾ Option 2:  Adjustments of the current Common Market Organisation for fisheries and aquaculture 
products (hereafter "Adjustments") 
¾ Option 3 :  Enhanced Market Policy for fisheries and aquaculture products (hereafter  "Enhanced 
Market Policy ") 
¾ Option 4 :  Deregulation of the current Common Market Organisation for fisheries and aquaculture 
products (hereafter "Deregulation"). 
Option 2  reduces intervention mechanisms to a single stor age aid for fishery products destined for human 
consumption. It deals with inconsistencies betw een minimum landing and marketing sizes. It makes 
revision of tariff quotas and autonomous suspension more flexible (every 3 years). 
Option 3  is the same as option 2, but empowering POs and Inter-Branch Organisations (IBOs) with 
additional tasks and granting them financial support to draw and implement sustainable production and 
marketing plans. This option also simplifies and adap ts the scope of marketing standards; it inserts the 
respect of international conventions for fisheri es governance for sourcing under preferential autonomous 
tariff arrangement; it sets up a European Market Obser vatory; it extends mandatory consumer information 
and its scope to all products (fresh, frozen, canned, processed). It provid es a framework to ensure accuracy 
and control of voluntary labelling. 
Option 4  no CMO. This option suppresses all financial s upport (intervention and support to collective 
actions) and any specific legal instrument for fish eries and aquaculture products. No precondition for 
imported fisheries and aquaculture products. 
The four options are described in more de tails by the following specific objectives:  
5.1. Reinforced EU policy market incentives to support sustainable production practices  
Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Adjustments Option  3: Enhanced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation 
• POs : manage market 
intervention mechanisms (withdrawals, carry over, private storage, tuna compensatory allowance)  
• POs : develop 
planning and marketing of production within operational programmes • Elimination of 
withdrawal mechanism; 
• Introduction of 
simplified single storage aid for fishery products stored /processed and reintroduced onto the market for human consumption; setting orientation price at adequate level 
• Review of minimum 
marketing size to be consistent with biological size  Same as option 2 and add: 
• Empower POs by strengthening their 
missions to ensure sustainable activities of their members (co-management of fishing opportunities, reduction of aquaculture impact on the environment , control and sanction of their members, reduction / elimination of discards,) 
• Facilitate partnership ( POs and 
IBOs)  for sustainable production, sourcing and consumption  (standard contract, eco-labelling, information) including  at transnational level 
• Preferential autonomous tariff 
arrangement for sourcing only countries that respect global conventions framing international fisheries governance.  • Operators organised in a 
voluntary and private way or according national law. 
• Only private initiatives  
to move to sustainable sourcing and consumption 
• No sustainability pre-
conditions on imports in trade instrument  
 
 335.2. Improve market position of EU production 
Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Adjustments Option  3: Enhanced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation 
• Current PO quality 
plans 
• Current Autonomous 
tariff policy maintains existing shape. Tariff suspensions defined in 1999 fixed for the duration of the regulation and tariff quota reductions revised every 3 years. System accompanied by reference price system. Coverage of measures limited to un/semi-processed products • Provisions for 
supporting POs in aquaculture  
• Autonomous tariff 
policy with tariff quotas and
 autonomous 
suspensions to be revised on a 3 yearly basis. Coverage of measures limited to un/semi-processed products Same as option 2 and add: 
• Support to fishing/aquaculture POs 
and/or POs associations (through concentration of supply and production and marketing planning including improvement of product quality and innovation) 
• Strengthen missions of IBOs to 
develop measures intended to enhance coordination within the value chain, both at national and transnational levels. • Organisation of 
production managed by private operators. 
• Without pre-condition  for 
imports a level playing field should disappear putting at risk the move towards more market oriented policy  
• Reference prices would no 
longer apply. 
5.3. Better connect EU production to the EU market 
Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Adjustments Option  3: Enhanced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation 
• Current market 
intervention policy remains. • Reduce intervention 
mechanisms to a single storage aid (no public aid for withdrawal of fish) for fishery products re-introduced to the market for human consumption.  
 Same as option 2 and add: 
• Strengthen POs missions to ensure a 
better  planning and grouping of their production and that production is adjusted to demand in terms of quality, quantity and presentation 
• Foster new missions for IBOs to 
improve coordination along the marketing chain (standard contracts, exchange of information), innovation, new market outlets), and actions of  common interest (promotion and  information campaign)  
• Establish a European Market 
Observatory
32 to provide operators and 
policy makers with information all along the value chain and to improve transparency of the markets 
• If necessary accompanying measures 
for placing discards species landed on the market • No market intervention 
mechanisms  
• Market analysis and 
transparency left to private operators.  
 
5.4. Enhance market potential of EU products 
Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Adjustments Option  3: Enhanced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation 
                                                 
32 A European Market Observatory is not in place currently. The on-going prep aratory action (see Annex 8 for more 
details) would provide harmoni sed economic information a llowing stakeholders, and pub lic authorities to have a 
global overview of European markets and to compare differe nt local or regional market situations. Mainly, based 
on the current data reporting obligations, it would collect and harmonise market data all along the supply chain of 
fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe. Moreover, it would produce relevant charts and tables as well as ad 
hoc market analyses and ensure an adequate and rapid di ssemination of this information to all users concerned. 
 
 34• Existing marketing 
standards on freshness, minimum marketing sizes, provision for canned tuna remain. 
• Compulsory 
information to consumers remains (3 criterias).  • Review marketing 
standards to enhance consistency between landing and marketing minimum sizes. 
• Compulsory information 
to consumers remains.  Same as option 2 and add: 
• Simplification and adaptation of 
marketing standards (elimination of freshness categories and grading; adaption of standards for canned products to conservation requirements and international obligations) 
• Reinforcement of mandatory 
requirements for information to EU consumers (extension to canned and processed products; more precise information on product provenance; additional indications of defrosted products and day of capture;  
• Frame for voluntary information: 
(environmental, ethical or social claims, production techniques and production practices) possibilities and legal basis to set minimum requirements if necessary in line with international and EU guidelines
33. 
• Support certification (quality, 
production techniques), innovation and promotion including at transnational level. • Suppression of marketing 
standards for fisheries and aquaculture products (except to respect EU international commitment such as for canned sardines or tuna).  
• No specific compulsory 
information to consumers (without prejudice of others EU law on labelling). 
• No specific frame for 
voluntary information provided on a private basis (without prejudice of others EU law on labelling).  
 
 
5.5. Support better governance and simplification  
 
Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Adjustments Option  3: Enhanced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation 
• 4 Council Regulations 
and 23 implementing Commission Regulations 
• 1 Council Regulation, 
6 Commission Regulations to set guide prices and intervention prices 
• 2 financial instruments 
: EAGF (centralised management) and EFF (shared management) • Only one Council and 
EP Regulation   
• No yearly  Regulations 
for prices 
• One single financial 
instrument (new EU Fund for Maritime and Fishery Policy) manage under shared management. • Concentration and simplification of 
financial support in one single CFP financial instrument.  
• Reduce the number of legal acts and 
simplify management of markets instruments.  
• Include more flexible mechanisms 
(market interventions, autonomous suspensions and quotas…) 
• EU financial support for collective 
actions by POs and IBOs (storage aid, planning and management of production and marketing  (e.g. support for quality, promotion, including at transnational level, labelling, certification, etc.) • No autonomous tariff quota 
and suspension in a specific Council Regulation for fisheries and aquaculture products 
• Only Article 31 of the TFEU 
(Common Customs Tariff duties) applies for unprocessed and semi-processed products. (DG TAXUD leads, DG MARE associated) (bi-annual Council Regulation based on MS request). 
• No financial instrument to 
support the Market Policy 
                                                 
33 December 2010 Commission Communication: EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2010/C 341/04) :  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ.do?uri=OJ:C :2010:341:0005:0011: en:PDF 
 
 35SECTION 6: METHODOLOGY USED  
6.1. Sources and data 
The impact assessment is based on the external evaluations that measure d the effects of CMO instruments 
on development of sustainable fishing, price stability and market balance, income of producers, quality of the products and information to consumers. 
The evaluation focused on all fisheries and aquacultu re products concerned by  Regulation 104/2000 in its 
annex 1 with particular focus on pr oducts eligible to market interven tion. Large surveys and bilateral 
meetings involved POs, fisheries and aquaculture or ganisations and MS. Field visits took place in 10 MS: 
meetings with national administrations, research centres, producers, wholesalers, processing industry, importers and retailers. Eight detailed case studies we re published on marketing and business potential of 
certain fisheries and aquaculture products in specific markets
34.  
Data collection and analysis are based on Eurostat, Comext, FIDES, FAO and DG Mare’s own calculation. 
Analysis was limited by large variations  of data availability between EU MS. 
6.2. Methodology to assess impacts 
Options 2, 3 and 4 are assessed in terms of their effec tiveness, efficiency and coherence and are analysed 
vis à vis the expected development of the Base Li ne scenario (option 1: Status Quo). Quantitative, 
qualitative and trends analys is have been conducted. 
Assessment of impact of the organisation of the sector  is complex and of a quantitative and qualitative 
nature. The percentage of EU pr oduction covered by POs provides a re levant indicator (annex 2 and 3). 
Benchmarking analyses with other food sectors and mark et policies (Common Organisations of Market in 
agricultural sectors) have been conducted. In particul ar, detailed analysis and comparison with the reform 
of Fruit and Vegetables CMO demonstrated common features (fresh products, numerous producers, price 
volatility…). Objectives of the Market Policy are also sim ilar to some extent: contribute to protection of the 
environment, strengthen the producers’ position and income, stabilise the market, managing costs, strengthen competitiveness. This provided useful benchm arks on policy tools to support organisation of the 
sector for marketing and crisis management (see a nnex 5) taking into account large differences in the 
budget intensity allocated for market intervention (see table 9).  
Impact of the intervention policy
 is extracted from the evaluation study and trend analyses have been 
conducted by integrating stakeholders  and MS inputs. Assessments of various scenarios of the changes in 
autonomous tariff policy  have been made by DG MARE services on the basis of the current and trends in 
supply and external trade structure, using the evaluation of the EU market and COMEXT data. 
Impacts of information to consumers  are based on qualitative and quantita tive data, expected consumption 
trends (annex 6: EU market  developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products), number of EU 
certified fisheries and volume / value of certified products  sold in the EU (see Annex 7: Overview of the 
EU market for sustainable fishing certified products), contribution from stakeholders (in particular MS and 
NGOs) and also benchmark with othe r food sector and market trends.  
Environment impacts  are indirect and should be seen in a l ong term perspective: improved organisation 
leading to increase value of production and lower incen tives to overfish, confidence and image building for 
consumers, possible contribution to implementation of a discard policy… Social impacts  are also indirect 
and their analysis is based on the evaluation study  and the impact assessment report on the CFP reform. 
                                                 
34 Etudes de cas de filières - Annexe 3 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm 
 
 36SECTION 7: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
The four options are analysed on the basis of thei r economic, social, environmental and administrative 
impacts.   
7.1. Option 1: Status quo (Base line scenario)   
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 
POs activities focus on management of intervention m echanisms. No support or incentives to manage their 
fishing activities in a more sustainable way or ensu re that aquaculture activities are carried out in a 
sustainable manner. Continuation of withdrawal m echanisms contradicts new CFP objectives. Setting of 
minimum marketing sizes raises awareness by the industry, retail trade and consumers of the impact of juveniles fish consumption on the renewal capacity of  the resource. Based on information available EU 
consumers may have difficulties in making an inform ed choice about more responsible consumption. 
ECONOMIC IMPACT 
Organisation of the sector
:   Additional services, provided by POs to its members, in particular to better 
connect their production to the market requirements, w ill be limited. Interbranch Organisations also remain 
rather limited in both numbe rs and projects conducted.  
Market intervention policy :   Impact of market intervention policy with very limited aid intensity will 
remain concentrated on some fishing ports and sp ecies which may therefore be considered more as 
structural aid.  
Information to EU consumers :   Provisions to obtain more precise information on the provenance of 
fisheries products to meet consumers’ expectati ons will remain voluntary for operators. Changes in 
consumption features including the growth of out-o f-home consumption (restaurant and catering) and 
increased interest in sustainable fishing will not be considered. 
Autonomous tariff policy :   The current system of autonomous tariff quotas and suspensions should 
continue benefiting the EU processing industry wit hout having a negative impact on EU production. The 
budgetary impact would be around 55 M Euro of uncollect ed duties, i.e. uncollected revenues for the EU 
budget to be compared with tax revenues from the maintained activity and employment.   
While autonomous tariff quotas are revised every th ree years, the current autonomous suspensions, 
established in 1999, are not adapted to the rapidly e volving needs of the processing industry. Moreover, in 
some cases (i.e. cod) they overlap with the current quota provisions.  
 
SOCIAL IMPACTS  
The effects on income will remain restricted to cases where interventions prevent price drops. This 
represents less than 1% of the value of eligible sp ecies and focuses primarily on a few pelagic fisheries in 
four MS.  Impact on employment is limited to some activities in the small pelagic sector, mainly in FR, PT, 
and SP.  
Autonomous tariff policy :   They will continue to have an impact in terms of activity and employment in 
the processing sector, allowing a cheaper supply of raw materials and maintain competitiveness of the EU 
processing sector. 
IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE 
The current set of regulations should be modified to  conform with the Treaty of Lisbon. Administrative 
burdens and implementation costs will remain for ope rators such as Producer Organisations, MS and the 
Commission (i.e. data collection and exchange, impl ementation and review, controls). The current 
 
 37Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 and implementing regulations  create 135 types of obligations (notification, 
inspection, monitoring, reporting, certification, aid request)35.  
The impact on the EU budget will remain the same 36 (±15 million euro/year). The economic impact for 
producers should be very limited and should not a llow funding collective initiatives to support production 
and marketing plans and management.  
7.2. Option 2: Adjustments  
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
Market intervention policy
:  Suppressing aid for withdrawal will have a rather direct limited impact 
considering the limited volume concerned by withdraw als in recent years. It is still a strong political 
message to support environmental sustainability of fish ing activities. Setting a market oriented mechanism 
(storage aid) and fixing intervention prices at adequate  levels will have a direct impact on the management 
of PO's fishing activities and on the profitability of th eir activities. This could allow extension of their 
missions to support more sustainable fishing practices.   
Marketing standards:
  Harmonisation of minimum landing and ma rketing sizes to be conducted will not 
have an impact directly on resources but would rath er increase consistency with the objectives of the CFP 
reform.  
ECONOMIC IMPACT  
 Organisation of the sector:
   Under this option, POs activities, ma ndate and attractiveness would mainly 
remain limited to management of intervention mechan isms which would focus on simplified storage aid.  
In terms of impact on first sale prices, producers are likely to remain as price takers, as long as they do not efficiently group their supply and better promote their production. 
 
Market intervention policy
:  Support to withdrawal will be ab andoned under this option which, 
considering decrease in use of this instrument over the last years will steer producers to further adjust catch 
decisions to demand. The disparity as regards first sale price formation w ithin the EU calls for a differentiated and more 
consistent approach across geographical areas. Therefor e, setting intervention prices at a decentralised level 
on the basis of prices recorded during the three preceding years, would increase consistency and bring intervention prices closer to market realities. It would lead to a uniform access of POs to financial 
instruments. A storage facility would take into account the uncerta inty of fishing activities and the need to better 
structure the sector. It will help the day-to-day regula tion of the market by POs in the event of unforeseen 
drops in market prices respecting the market orientation of the intervention logic. Storage aid would strengthen the added value of EU fishing products. 
Autonomous tariff policy:
  Suspensions defined in 1999 are partly obs olete. Under this option they would 
be revised to match the industry's current needs. Howe ver, if under this option the current legal architecture 
is maintained new suspensions would be fixed for the whole duration of the Market Policy regulation 
(CMO). The current mismatch between nature and size of suspensions and needs of the EU processing 
                                                 
35 Notification by MS to define a price system has led to the establishment of a detailed European database on first 
sale prices (FIDES). Administrative costs are also linked to the establishment of a list of commercial names of species (from 49 to 962 depending on MS) by each MS.  
36 Total expenses decreased from 15.5 million € in 2002 to 11.1 million € in 2009, where major expenses related to 
interventions. Withdrawals and carry-over represented 82%  of the expenditure of the CMO in 2009. Over the 
years withdrawals have reduced and ca rry-over has increased (withdrawals fell from 39% of total expenditures in 
2002 to 25% in 2009). 
 
 38industry would manifest itself a few years after the entry into force of the new regulation. This is why the 3 
yearly revision system should include not only tariff quotas but also tariff suspensions. 
 
Marketing standards:  Enhancing consistencies between la nding and minimum marketing sizes will 
reinforce operators' confidence but will also have limited impact.  
 
Information to consumers:  No change compared with status quo. 
SOCIAL IMPACT   
Same limited impact as "Status quo" 
IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE  
 Budget:
   The impact on the EU budget will remain the same as "Status Quo".  
The impact of tariff quotas and suspensions on the EU  Budget revenue would result in similar amounts to 
those calculated in option 1.  
Simplification of the legal framework and administrative burden
:  This would entail suppression of 7 
legal acts by year (1 Council act fixing Guide Prices and 6 implementing acts corresponding to the current intervention mechanism). The setting of a single storage mechanism and decentrali sed price at an adequate level would effectively 
reduce administrative costs and should be less burdens ome for MS and the Commission. In addition, it will 
simplify financial management by moving from the current combination of EAFG and EEF funding to 
shared management within the single financial instrument of the CFP.  
Notifications
:  Decentralisation of the intervention price at the adequate level should reduce the 
administrative burden for Commission services:  MS should continue to notify the Commission for recogn ition of POs, associations of POs, IBOs and would 
transmit intervention prices applied at a decentralized level to the Commission.  
Reduction of reporting obligations fo r POs (upholding of information about price and quantities stored for 
intervention to their national competent authority).  
7.3. Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  
 Organisation of the sector:
   Empowering fishery POs in collective management, monitoring and control 
of fishing opportunities allocated by the Member Stat es concerned (including individual fishing rights and 
fishing efforts of their members) would significantly support the new CFP objectives and strengthen the sustainability of the EU fishery sector. Developmen t of production and marketing strategy by POs will 
steer producers to adjust their activities. Collective initiatives improved by aquaculture POs s hould also foster and promote measures and best 
practices to reduce the environmental impact (i.e. pollution), to manage aquaculture production including 
animal health and bio-security. POs should seize co llective initiatives more efficiently which often go 
beyond EU regulatory requirements. Moreover, IBOs' s hould play a significant role to promote sustainable 
practices by supporting partnerships all along th e market chain up to the final consumer.  
 
Interventions on the market
:   Same impact as the option "Adjustment" 
 
Information to consumers : Access for consumers to more precise information on all products whatever 
their presentation will considerably extend knowledge on fisheries and aquaculture products. This will help 
consumers to make better informed choi ces and support responsible consumption.  
The development of private initiatives for certifica tion (i.e. eco-labelling schemes by NGOs, commitment 
to sustainable sourcing) provides for a strong market in centive in the right direction. However, considering 
 
 39the variety and complexity of the sector and the risk of free riders or proliferation of “labels”, adequate EU 
standards frameworks would increase credibility of ope rators and confidence of purchasers and consumers 
on accuracy of environmental claims and support the increase of their penetration into the EU market if necessary. This should contribute to giving greater impetus and value to sustainable practices. 
Autonomous tariff arrangem ents of the EU market 
:  To support this option, specific EU trade 
provisions would limit sourcing to countries which have ratified core conventions on sustainable 
development and good fishery governance. 
 
ECONOMIC IMPACT Organisation of the sector
:   Benchmark analysis with the fruit and vegetable sector indicates that there is 
a clear correlation between the level of structuri ng of production, price stability and added value.  
Support to organisation of the sector by means of re inforcing roles, rights and mandate will have an 
indirect impact on the attractiveness of POs, associati ons of POs and IBOs which is difficult to quantify. 
The collective initiatives should reduce individual costs for operators. Under this option, an increase of EU production management by POs is expected. Planning and 
concentration of supply should lead to  better first sale price stability. POs would play a more important role 
in supporting EU fishermen and fish farmers to grasp the market dimension of their activity with a view to put on the market only products that have a strong chance to find a buyer at a satisfactory price. Coherence of two CFP components 'market and resources' will therefore improve. The EU Market Observatory (see Annex 8) would provide harmonised economic information allowing 
stakeholders, and public authorities to have a globa l overview of European markets and to compare 
different local or regional market situations. It would collect and harmonise market data all along the 
supply chain of fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe and produce relevant charts and tables as well 
as ad hoc market analyses. It will ensure an adequa te and rapid dissemination of economic information to 
all users concerned. Adequate market expertise should reinforce market  positions and ability to improve predictability and 
anticipate crises. An improvement of bargaining power  of the producers should indeed lead to a more 
balanced added value distribution: stability or in crease of first sale price for producers and increased 
predictability in volume, quality and pr esentation for processors and retailers.  
IBOs should support optimisation of the marketing chai n by reduction of information and transaction costs. 
These should lead to an improvement in the position of  operators while consumers would not be affected 
by price increase.  
Interventions on the market:
 Same impact as the option "Adjustment" but improved production planning 
will enable to make a more rational and effective use of market intervention instrument of storage aid. 
 
Marketing standards :    More adequate specifications of the produc ts will facilitate the offer meeting the 
demand in particular to promote envi ronmental and economic sustainability. 
It will facilitate distant buying and e-commerce whic h is on the increase due to the interconnection of 
electronic auctions.  Review of product specifications would result in lower transaction costs in an integrated EU market with 
the numerous landing sites, with limited quantities of various species. 
 
Information to consumer
:  Revamping the current mandatory information, by way of more precise 
information on provenance is pertinent to support lo cal purchase and focus on sustainable consumption and 
will be fully supported by the new EU obligation to extend the traceability of FAPs (entering into force on 
1st January 2013). In this context, the proposed extension will not create additional costs.  
This will, in particular, facilitate small scale fleets to better market their production. It is also expected to 
support or restore consumer confidence and he lp them to make an informed choice.  
In the same vein, the extension of information requirements for canned and processed products would 
satisfy consumers' expectations whatever  the presentation and help preventing fraud.   
Autonomous tariff arrangem ents of the EU market : It is estimated that products entering under 
autonomous quotas and suspensions represent around 5% of  the overall EU consumption of fisheries and 
aquaculture products. With reference to the use of  autonomous tariff quotas in 2009, such a conditionality 
 
 40would lead to imports for certain important species (s uch as cod, surimi, shrimps and tuna loins) no longer 
benefiting from the reduced tariff duties but having to  pay MFN duties, at least until such a time when 
exporting partner countries have enga ged in the process of joining the global conventions. EU processors 
may also have to diversify their sour cing policy towards eligible partners.  
 
 
 
SOCIAL IMPACTS 
Market intervention policy :    This option would help support producer incomes directly and indirectly to 
maintain or foster jobs in the sector, both upstream and downstream.  Furthermore, with better production a nd marketing planning, the setting of a single storage aid, would help 
to absorb the impact of a sudden price crisis linke d to unpredictable conditions and/or changes in CFP 
policy (such as the introduction of new rules fo r discards or others conservation measures).   
 
Autonomous tariff arrangem ents of the EU market
:  The application of good governance and 
sustainable development pre-conditions to all trade in struments and imports would imply a significant gain 
in terms of creating a level playing field in favour  of EU producers on their own market. Limiting this 
conditionality to the autonomous regime would make  little sense as only 5% of imports are covered.  
 
IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE  
Budget:
 The new single financial framework for CFP w ill support the synergy between the intervention 
regime (storage aid) and collective initiatives (pla nning of production and marketing initiatives) lead by 
POs and IBOs. The detailed analysis and impact of the new financial instrument for the CFP will be 
developed in a separate impact assessment. Nonethel ess the impact assessment for the CFP recommends to 
move away from the fleet support in favour of smart, green, innovative and market-oriented solutions. While option 3 advocates increasing concentration of mission and implementation through POs, financial 
support to the organisation of the sector should be enha nced accordingly. This is in line with reforms of 
market policy in agriculture products that shifted fro m direct support to production to concentration of aid 
on marketing and adding value of first sale.  With the exception of transnational initiatives, these w ill be financed under the shared management of the 
single financial instrument instead of the current  combination of EAGF and EFF funding. Additional 
funding will be necessary to finance the functioning of the EU Market Observatory mainly, based on the 
current data reporting obligations
37. Opening and revision autonomous tariff quotas and suspensions would 
result in terms of the EU Budget revenue, approximate ly to 55 million euro/year of uncollected duties.  
The level of financial resources needed cannot curren tly be definitively estimated. Past Community funding 
under FIFG for the period 2000-2006 for measures coveri ng collective actions amounted to €56 Million in 
commitment appropriations per yea)38. The net present value in 2010 is €60 Million (2% discount rate). 
The final allocation of the funds under the future fi nancial instrument for the Market Policy (including 
storage aid, production and marketing plan and othe r market measures) will be done by MS following 
negotiations with the concerned POs and IBOs. Met hodology and budget repartition will be defined in the 
impact assessment of the financial instrument of the CFP.  
                                                 
37The annual budget should be estimated between 1 to 5 million euros according to the option retained at the end of 
the on-going preparatory action (end of 2012)  
38 Source: Ex-Post evaluation of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) 2000-2006, p39: Measure 44 
- Operations by members of the trade (kEUR 253.388) + Measure 43 – Promotion of new market outlets (kEUR 138.593) = kEUR 391.981 over 7 years, i.e. Eur 56 Mio / year. 
 
 41Simplification of the legal framework and administrative burden:  Simplification of the overall legal 
framework by focusing on essential provisions. Same ex tensive simplification for market intervention 
mechanism and related decentralised price setting as in  “Adjustment” option. Considering the lack of 
explicit market failure or consensus of the sector fo r marketing standards , it is envisaged to encourage 
operators to define possible additional product specifications or new standards. 
Notification:  same as “Adjustment” option. 
  
7.4. Option 4: Deregulation 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
 
Organisation of the sector
: Lack of support for POs will negatively affect coordination of their activities 
to implement sustainable fishing practices. It would limit management efforts currently undertaken by POs.   
Information to consumers
: Removal of obligatory information will prevent consumers from making 
informed choices. Market incentives to  move to sustainable sourcing and consumption are increasing in EU 
based on private initiatives. Processors, catering compan ies, restaurants and large retails companies are 
setting environmental commitments and increasingly s ourcing from certified fisheries. Joint-marketing 
campaigns on sustainable fishing involving processors a nd supermarkets are curren tly being developed in 
France and the Netherlands. As previously mentioned, this new market development still needs to build up 
credibility and confidence. 
 
ECONOMIC IMPACT  
Organisation of the sector
: Elimination of Market Policy instruments would take away incentives for 
sector structuring, and result in the disappearance of many POs, whose attractiveness is largely linked to 
opportunities for intervention and aid for planning a nd quality. It would also weaken the position of 
producers to negotiate and limit ability to adapt supply to demand (supply atomised and lack of 
coordination between producers).   
 
Market intervention policy : Elimination of CMO instruments, including interventions and price 
mechanisms would remove existing safety nets, and therefore nothing would prevent a price decrease in 
case of crises. It would eliminate current disparities in the utilisation of mechanisms between MS and 
production sectors and stimulate producers to seek alte rnative production planning and commercial outlets, 
thus limiting windfall effects.   
 
Autonomous tariff policy : Deregulation would mean that free trade cannot be conditional and market 
should solve conflicting interests between producer s and processors. The latter would push for quick 
general liberalisation of tariffs and rules of origin in order to secure a regular and cheap flow of raw 
material. The former would on the contrary ask for more protection or at least maintain it at current levels. 
This option would not be compatible with the need fo r a gradual policy move towards more "market" that 
is favoured by most EU government in this sector.  
Until such time as other trade instruments (WTO NAMA, FTAs, GSP, etc.) match / compensate the level of 
liberalisation currently provided by the existing au tonomous regime, the processing industry itself would 
loose the benefit it enjoys today of  55 million euros a year. 
Finally, the processing industry understands that as mu ch as it would like to have access to raw material 
they would suffer from unconditional exposure to imports of processed fish products and a large part of it 
would have to resolve to delocalising production. 
Marketing standards : Removing standards would result in the loss of a common reference in a 
fragmented sector and would potentially lead to the est ablishment of standards at MS level leading to 
 
 42internal market fragmentation. Some private initiatives also lead to increase normalisation and 
standardisation. This is the case in highly integrat ed sectors such as pelagics species, where more precise 
freshness standards are being developed. This is howev er unlikely to materialise in other less integrated 
sectors. 
Information to consumers : Removing mandatory information that would be replaced by information on a 
private and voluntary basis is a workable option. Ge neral EU legislation on information to consumers on 
foodstuffs will apply.  
Many operators already provide more informati on on their products than the minimum mandatory 
requirements. As previously mentioned, major ope rators are committed to increase their sustainable 
sourcing. Pressure from environmental and consum er NGOs is increasing with the establishment of 
consumers’ guides, retailers ranking,  and campaigns. This will, however, not fully meet the objective of 
better informing EU consumers and enhance their knowledge on fisheries and aquaculture products to 
enable them to make an informed choice.  
In addition, observed cases of weak and misleading e nvironmental allegations jeopardise the process of 
improving fishing and commercial practices and restori ng both the fishing stocks and the image of the 
sector. Stakeholders (producers, processors, certifi cation organisation, NGOs, retailers) engaged in 
supporting sustainable fishing are calling for additional le gal initiatives at EU level in this field due to the 
complexity of the sector and the risk of free rider behaviour.  
 
SOCIAL IMPACT  
The removal of market instruments, in particular carry-over, is likely to impact on some sectors (small 
pelagic canneries) that could relocate outside the EU . In these cases, impact on jobs and income would be 
substantial at local scale.  
 
IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE 
 Simplification of the legal framework and administrative burden
:   Important reduction of EU legal 
instruments (only to respect internationa l commitments such as market standards). 
 
Budget:  The removal of the intervention mechanism would reduce EU financial aid by 15 million 
Euros/year. The direct cost of a general suspension of tariff du ties would constitute a loss of revenue for the EU budget 
amounting to more than 510 million Euros (uncollected duties).   
Notifications
: Administrative costs detailed in previous options would disappear. 
  
 
43 Table 11: Summary of impacts and administrative burden by option 
Criteria Option 2: Adjustments Option 3: Enhan ced Market Policy Option 4: Deregulation Type of 
Impact     
Direct/indirect Direct (limited) Direct and Indirect Direct and Indirect 
Who Producers, processors, public 
authorities Producers, processors, retailers, consumers public aut horities producers, processors, retailers, consumers  
Link with base 
line option Improved national and 
transnational cooperation for 
aquaculture and fisheries Pos and 
IBOs 
Storage facility will contribute to 
absorb unexpected landings and 
prevent price drops –increased of 
stability of first sale price 
Continued adaption to needs of 
processing industry in terms of 
Autonomous Tariff Quotas Concentration of supply. Facilita tion of interbranch operations 
and storage facility: Increase incentive to better anticipate the 
demand, better price stability, reinforcement of market 
positions, more balanced added value distribution.  
Increased available and updated market analysis 
Improved production planning.  
Improve access to competitive sourcing for EU processors. 
Periodic revision of autonomous tariff and suspensions 
Increase level playing field conditions with imports 
Improve consumers confidence by making available accurate 
and reliable information  Weaker position of producers. Removal of safety 
nets 
Stimulus for producers to seek alternative production 
planning 
Similar access to raw material for processing industry 
with possible transitional disruption. 
Fragmentation of the market increases 
Weak consumer position to make informed choices 
Risks 
 - EU CFP policy fails 
- Fuel price increases  - EU CFP policy fails -  No compliance and lack of control on 
labelling - Limited financial support 
- Fuel price increases EU CFP policy fails - No compliance, lack of control 
on labelling -  Lack of confidence of EU consumers 
- Fuel price increases  ECONOMIC 
Indicators: 
 ► Stability of first sale prices  ► Stability of first sale prices ► EU market Observatory 
delivers short, medium and long term economic data   
► Number of POs and association of POs ►  %  o f  
production ► Number and % of EU fisheries certified ► % 
of certified products on the EU market ►  Consumers 
confidence (panels) ► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►% of 
certified products on the EU market  ►  Consumers 
confidence (panels) 
 
 
 
 44  
Direct/indirect
: Direct and indirect Direct and Indirect Indirect  
Who Mainly: producers, public 
authorities Mainly: producers, processors, retailers, consumers public 
authorities Mainly: producers, processors, retailers, consumers 
public authorities 
Link with base 
line option  Consistency landing and 
marketing sizes; No more public 
support to withdrawal; No 
incentives for sustainable 
practices Increased responsibilities and incentives for sustainable 
practices; Improved consistency of the CFP; Possibilities to 
accompany policy  on discards; increased consumer 
confidence on environmental claims  Market driven development only. No market 
instruments for a possible discards policy. 
Consumers will not fully be able to make informed 
choices, Risks of misleading consumers 
Risks No compliance and lack of 
control on labelling No compliance and lack of control on labelling 
Limited financial support No compliance and lack of control on labelling ENVIRONENTAL 
Indicators ► Number and % of EU 
fisheries certified  ► % of 
certified products on the EU 
market ► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►  % of certified 
products on the EU market ► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►   % of 
certified products on the EU market 
 
Direct/indirect Indirect Direct and Indirect Direct and Indirect 
Who Mainly: producers, processors  Mainly:  producers, processors,  Mainly Producers  
Link with base 
line option Same as baseline impact Jobs and incomes stabilise or increase in production and 
processing Possible temporary disturbances 
Risks Fuel price increases  Structural policy of the C FP fails; Fuel price increases  Fuel price increases  SOCIAL 
Indicators ► Jobs and incomes ► Jobs and incomes ► Jobs and incomes 
Direct/indirect
: Direct Direct  Direct 
Who Mainly: industry, public 
authorities Mainly: industry, public authorities Mainly: industry, public authorities 
Link with base 
line option Legal and implementation 
simplification; Reduction of legal 
acts (price and interventions) Legal and implementation simplification; Reduction of legal 
acts (price and interventions); Self regulation ; Improved 
transparency and effectiveness of autonomous tariff policy  No legal framework 
 
Risks   IT tools not available on time  GOVERNANCE 
Indicators  ► Number of legal acts,  ► 
notifications (reporting ► Number of legal acts, notifications (reporting obligation) ► Number of legal acts, notifications (reporting  
 
 45 obligation) obligation) 
 
46 SECTION 8: COMPARING THE OPTIONS BY OBJECTIVES  
Based on the impacts assessed and the risks identified, op tions are compared vis-à-vis the baseline scenario 
(status quo) in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in  relation to the objectives and in terms of coherence 
with overarching EU objectives (namely the CFP objectiv es but also other cross-cutting issues). This can 
be summarised as follows:  
Table 12: Comparing the options 
Specific Objectives Option 1: 
Status quo Option 2 : 
Adjustments Option 3 : 
Enhanced 
Market Policy Option 4 : 
Deregulation 
Reinforced market incentives to 
support sustainable production practices   
/  
.  
☺☺  
. 
Improve market position of EU 
production  / .  ☺ /  
Better connect the EU production 
to the EU market  . .  ☺ .  
Enhance market potential of EU 
products  . ☺  ☺ .  
Support better governance and 
simplification  / ☺  ☺ ☺  
☺☺:  Option reaches the objective 
☺:  Option gets close to the objective 
.:  Option has no impact on the objective   /:  Option moves away from the objective 
//:  Option puts at risk the objective 
 
Option 1 , or the status quo, was evaluated in detail and was judged partly inefficient and too complex to 
fulfil its current objectives. So far the main focus of the CMO has been price stability through market 
intervention. This proved to have small impact and low performance; it tackled the symptoms rather than 
the real causes, sent the wrong political signals and left  operators with little or no responsibility. Today, 12 
years after its adoption, the current CMO appears unfit for the challenges of the EU market. It will result 
even more ineffective in the reformed CFP, and possibly inconsistent with its underlying objectives. 
Option 2  aims at correcting the main shortcomings of the existing CMO by proposing adjustments and 
simplifications that would improve its functioning.  It will however have limited impact on the main 
objective of the reformed CFP. Expected results of the reform defined by operational objectives will not be 
met in particular increase bargaining power of EU production, support market premium for sustainable practices and accompanying discards policy. 
Option 4  would remove the EU market policy altogether. It  is true that market-driven developments and 
incentives toward sustainability have  increased; the commitments by pr ocessors and retailers, combined 
with the increased pressure from NGOs and civil society to obtain sustainable products, should bring us closer to environmental objectives. Still, the main pr oblems identified, namely the complex and fragmented 
EU supply sector and the risks of misleading or confu sed consumer information, would only be partially 
addressed. In fact, the industry will be given more res ponsibility to manage their activities, but the lack of 
support to structure their production and of accompanying market measures would contradict the reform's goal to support market-based instruments (rather than costly structural measures) and help producers' 
organisation improve the marketing of th eir products and their bargaining power.  
Option 3  proposes to enhance market policy so as to accomp any the fisheries and aquaculture sector while 
it shifts toward sustainable production practices. Much can be done in terms of organisation and marketing 
to increase predictability of supply and reduce transacti ons costs. This option emphasises the role of each 
main stakeholder in favouring sustainable practices. 
 
 47Under this Option, the structure and objective of the new market policy would be much broader and bolder: 
• Several tools, particularly market interventions  mechanisms, are abandoned. This implies a strong 
political message and tremendous simplification.  
• Some elements, such as marketing standards and autonomous tariff policy, remain but with more 
flexibility; additional objectives are introduced (to support the development of distant selling or e-commerce, a level playing field etc). 
• Other elements are emphasised: the sector is re organised with stronger focus on the producers' 
ability to manage their production and market their products; a simplified single storage aid is foreseen (produce to be stored, processed and re introduced onto the market), information to 
consumers is considerably exte nded in scope and content.  
• One new element is the EU market observatory. 
Coherence with the CFP reform  
The impact assessment of the reform of the CFP concl uded that a far-reaching reform of the Market Policy 
is necessary, one that should reinforce the role of producer and inter-branch or ganisations and marketing 
measures in general. This will contribute to the refo rm's objectives of economic sustainability while also 
helping environmental sustainability. The market po licy should orient production activities to areas where 
market conditions are good and where there is a mark et for the fisheries and aquaculture products.  
The market policy should help increase the added value of fisheries and aquaculture products in a context 
where financial support is moved away from the fleet  (especially scrapping and temporary cessation), in 
favour of smart, green, innovative and market-oriented solutions for the fisheries and aquaculture sector. 
More specifically, some aspects of the market refo rm should accompany and support the implementation of 
the new CFP: 
• Empower POs to ensure management, enforcement and control of fishing activities of their 
members 
• Market-based transferable fishing shares (TFSs) allo w the fishing industry to adjust fleet capacity 
to the available marine resources without need for public intervention; POs could be responsible of 
collectively managing TFSs.  
• Market measures accompanying an active policy fo r mandatory landing of all catches for stocks 
subject to catch limits should be carefully defined and could be implemented by POs. 
• Give value to more selective and sustainable production activities and move away from strategy 
based on volume with improved production and marketing planning by POs and with EU 
consumers playing a more active role when they  are in a position to make informed choice. 
Variations in distributional impacts  between areas or regions are very limited due to a fully uniform 
access of POs to financial instruments and the all rules. Option 3 will put all EU POs on the same footing as regards access to the different market mechanisms, whatever their Member State. On the one hand, 
storage aid will be triggered by intervention prices tailo red to the specific market situation of each PO, thus 
avoiding any possible national discrimination caused by the application of single thresholds to the entire EU. On the other hand, the EU financial assistance fo r production and marketing pl anning will be available 
to all EU POs with the only condition of accomplishm ent of objectives. Finally, the EU financing will 
amount to a fixed percentage of each PO's marketed production. 
A broad range of stakeholders will largely benef it from an enhanced Market Policy. POs' increased 
responsibilities and resources will provide new bus iness opportunities to producers of fishery and 
aquaculture products, who will find membership more attractive. The new tariff policy will improve the 
predictability of supply of raw materials and this w ill enable processors to better predict their activities. 
The whole sector will be better coordinated and enc ouraged to launch initiatives of common interest in 
particular to promote sustainable fishing. Consumer s will be able to make better informed choices through 
improved and more accurate labelling of fishery and aquaculture products. Finally, the simplification and 
reduction in administrative burden will have a positive impact on the Commission, Member States' Administrations and economic operators.  
 
 48In view of the impact analysis DG MARE supports Option 3 to set up an enhanced Market Policy for 
fisheries and aquaculture products. 
 
SECTION 9: MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
As part of the CFP reform, the reform of the Mark et Policy will follow the timeframe of monitoring and 
evaluation of the CFP with evaluation to take place in 2017.   Various indicators are set up by objectives to monito r and evaluate progress towards the specific objectives 
of the reform of the Market Policy (table 11).  The setting up of the European Market Observatory w ill also enable prices and margin changes to be 
followed on a regular basis as well as volume and structure of landings in the EU market together with demand and consumption trends. By pr oviding structural and short term data, it will also serve as analytical 
tool to anticipate and analyse crises and ultimately enab le to evaluate to what extent the objectives of the 
Market Policy are reached and if n ecessary to adapt the policy framework. 
   
 
 49 
     
 
   
ANNEXES 
    
 
 
50 ANNEX 1: 
Current legal framework: Council Reg.(EC) n°104/2000 on the Common Or ganisation of the Markets of fisheries and aquaculture pro ducts 
 
 51 
 
 
52 ANNEX 1 Bis 
Reformed legal framework of the new Market Policy s of fishery and aquaculture products 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
Common Organisation of the Markets in 
fishery and aquaculture products  
Title I
Marketing 
standards and 
consumer info 
Title II 
Producer 
Organisations 
Title III 
Interbranch 
Organisations 
Title IV
Prices and 
Intervention 
Title V
Trade with 
Third 
countries 
(EC) Commission R 
2003/2006 
Financing by EAGF 
of CMO 
expenditure
(EC) Council R 
1198/2006  
on the European 
Fisheries Fund 
Common fishery and aquaculture Policy 
(Basic Regulation)  
Common Market Policy for fishery and 
aquaculture  Chapter XXV 
Market Policy for Fishery and 
aquaculture products 
Title I 
General provisions 
Financial instrument for the CFP
Title I ……../…………..Commission Reg  
Council Reg. Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Title I ……../…………..Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  
Commission Reg  Commission Reg  Commission Reg  Commission Reg  Commission Reg  
Council Reg. 
Council Reg. 
Council Reg. Title II 
Organisation of the secto r 
Title III 
Prices and Interventions 
Title IV 
Market standards and 
Information  to consumers 
Title IV 
External supply 
Title IV 
Market intelligence 
Title IV 
Final Provisions Commission Reg  Financial instruments  Self regul. 
Impl/Del Act Impl/Del Act 
Report. Obl° 
Council R. 
? 
 
 
 
 
 53ANNEX 2: 
Presentation and evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) n° 104/2000 on the Common 
Organisation of the Markets of fishery and aquaculture products 
1. Performance of the current Market Organisation  
Analysis and evaluation of the performance a nd relevance of the financial and non-financial 
instruments of the current Common Market le gislation (Reg. (EC) N° 104/2000) has been 
conducted in 2008 and 2009 based on seven evaluati on questions. The study is available on the 
internet. The main findings can be summarised as follow: 
Sustainability of fishing activities in line with the CFP  
The current CMO introduced the environmental di mension in order to direct fishing activities 
towards sustainability. The effectiveness of th e CMO was conditioned by internal and external 
inconsistencies, namely the diversity of inst ruments (financial: FIFG, EAGF; management of 
resources: quotas, data gathering); inconsistencie s between CMO and CFP; inconsistencies within 
CMO (lack of evaluation of operational programme s for POs sharing stocks); the operation of 
each PO in their fisheries and their coordination with other POs. 
Although the overall impact of the CMO is mixed, there are positive effects on the sustainability 
of fishing activities: Strengthening of minimu m sizes by POs and/or national authorities; 
educational value of operational programmes in th e planning of fishing activities; partnership of 
POs in research programmes about selectivity of fishing techniques; internal PO rules on catch limitations; evolution of intervention towards less wasteful practices. 
Stability of the markets 
 
Overall, the guide prices had little impact on the market prices. Similarly, the effect of 
intervention on price stability was restricted to the correction of periodic fluctuations in pelagic species. Therefore, the role of intervention is lim ited to a safety net which avoids excessive price 
fluctuations in some local markets. 
Competitiveness of the sector
 
Competitiveness seems to be more affected by other important regulatory and socio-economic 
factors. The CMO contributed to the structuri ng of the sector but the weak acceptance of 
interbranch organisations shows that the CMO did not produce the expected results. The CMO 
impact on competitiveness was mixed and limited to upstream stages of the value chain. Only the 
trade arrangements with third countries appear to  have direct effects on competitiveness, but only 
for the processing industry. 
Income of producers  
The effect of the structuring of the sector in POs and the intervention measures varied with the 
Member State and the species. Certain POs made proper use of the CMO and put in place market 
measures which yielded better prices for some  products and strengthened the producers' position. 
Nevertheless, the impact of operational progr ammes was rather limited. The effects of the 
intervention mechanisms were restricted to safety net in the event of crisis. 
Overall the CMO had little effect on the developm ent of producers' incomes. Other external 
factors to the CMO played a more important role : cyclical factors (reduction in catches, rise in 
 
 54costs not compensated by price levels) and structur al factors (insufficient distribution of added 
value throughout the value chain, low transparency in certain markets, inadequate market structures). 
Creation of new jobs or safeguard of existing jobs in the fisheries sector
 
Given the modest budget of the CMO (around 10 M€ per year), the direct effects on employment 
are very weak. Some indirect effects are related to the structuring of th e sector in POs and the 
concentration of the offer, although limited. On  the other hand, the opening of tariff quotas 
provided supplies of raw materials to the proce ssing industry in appropriate quantity and price, 
thus maintaining companies and jobs in an indirect manner. 
Quality of products  
Neither the common marketing standards nor the quality improvement plans had direct effects on 
product quality, the latter being limited to the submi ssion of only 4 plans. The marketing standards 
however played an important role in the grading of freshness according to harmonised quality standards. Overall, the quality improved in the last  years but this was mainly due to other factors 
such as market constraints, modernisation of the fleet, FIFG investments, and private initiatives. 
Knowledge of consumers about fishery products
 
The consumer information provisions provided a harmonised minimum set of information while 
leaving flexibility to the MS or the sector to add further information. Nevertheless, the 
effectiveness of the provisions was affected by a mixed application depending on the Member 
State, insufficient controls in certain MS, a nd a number of infringements. Knowledge about 
fisheries products progressed overall but the effect of the legislation was indirect and relatively 
marginal. External factor played a more important role, i.e. information campaigns, 
communication by NGOs or professional organisations, marketing information. 
 
2. Policy, legal and financial instruments  
A Common Market Organisation (CMO) for fisheries and aquaculture products is in operation39. 
Its legal basis is Article 40 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Like 
the market organisations in agricultural products, the CMO is designed to accompany the operation and development of the internal market  for fisheries products. The CMO was created to 
achieve the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the TFEU in the fisheries sector, in particular to 
provide market stability and to guarantee a fair income for producers.
  
The CMO's main goals are to (1) promote price stability, (2) ensure an optimal balance between 
supply and demand through public intervention on the market and production planning, (3) 
strengthen competitiveness, (4) ensure supply of the EU processing industry while respecting the 
interest of EU producers, (5) convey proper inform ation to the consumer. The current CMO is also 
specifically designed to contribute to the CFP's ge neral objective of seeking sustainable fisheries 
and to secure the future of the fishery sector. 
                                                 
39 Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22 
 
 55The CMO is run on the basis of 4 Council Regulations and 23 implementing Commission 
Regulations, which cover its different instruments,  i.e. organisation of the sector in producer 
organisations and interbranch organisations , price and intervention mechanisms, common 
marketing standards, consumer information, and cer tain tariff arrangements to facilitate imports of 
raw materials for processing (tariff suspensions and quotas). 
 Financial instruments  
The different mechanisms pertaining to the CMO are funded by two financial instruments: 
• The Structural Fund for Fisheries  (FIFG until 31 December 2006, EFF as of 1 January 
2007) supports structural measures in the fisheries sector including certain actions 
undertaken by Producers Organisations (POs); 
• The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund  (EAGGF until 15 October 2006; EAGF as 
of 16 October 2006) finances operating expenses of POs. 
Further to the financing of the CMO m echanisms, the EAGF also supports the 
compensation scheme for the outermost regions  (total amount of compensation per year: 
15 million euros). 
The EAGF  covers the expenditure relating to the different intervention mechanisms and the 
compensation for operational programmes, i.e. pr oduction and marketing planning. These aids are 
specifically addressed to POs. DG MARE handl es the expenditure by way of centralised 
management with MS as final beneficiaries, i.e. the Commission reimburses the payments made 
by the MS to their Producers' organisations. The EAGF average expenditure per year amounts to 
12.5 million euros. 
 Organisation of the sector  
In 2010 there were 237 Producers' Organisations  (POs) recognised in 16 MS. Spain, Italy, 
France, Germany and the UK account for 72% of th e total number. 13 POs are established in the 
Baltic new MS, i.e. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 
POs are a fundamental feature of the CMO since they constitute the interface between 
catch/aquaculture activities and the market. They are set up voluntarily by fishermen or fish farmers to organise and stabilise the market a nd to improve the financial returns from their 
production through the following measures :  
• Planning of production and marketing activities: POs have to submit to their national 
authorities an operational programme  for the fishing year. This includes a plan of 
deliveries from their members, a marketing strategy to adapt supply to demand, and preventive measures for species that are traditionally difficult to market; 
• Management of intervention mechanisms , i.e. taking fisheries products off the market 
when prices fall below a given level in order to stabilise the market; 
• Plans to improve the quality of products  throughout all stages of production and 
marketing; 
• Possibility to extend PO's production and marketing rules  to non-members operating in 
the same area of activity. 
 
 56Membership is not compulsory, but only PO's members can qualify for financial  compensation  
from EAGF (operational programmes and in tervention mechanisms) and EFF (quality 
improvement plans, aids for the creation of POs). 
Recognition  is granted by national authorities provided th e PO is sufficiently economically active. 
For catch POs, the economic criteria are based on the size of the area covered by the PO, the 
capacity of fishing vessels operating, the frequenc y and volume of landings. For aquaculture POs, 
the criteria take into account the percentage of total production of the species reared by the PO 
within a production area deemed sufficiently large by the Member State concerned. 
Interbranch Organisations  (IBOs) are made of representativ es of production (fisheries or 
aquaculture), trade and processing. However, IBOs cannot engage themselves in production, 
processing or marketing activities. In 2007 there were  4 IBOs recognised in 3 MS: 2 in Spain (one 
in the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in France (aquaculture) and one in Italy (both catch and aquaculture). 
Their purpose is to promote partnership measures  of shared interest for the entire sector such as 
market surveys and research, development of fisheries products, quality initiatives and labels, 
promotion of environmentally friendly producti on methods. Most of these measures can be 
financed  by the EFF under collective actions  and development of new markets and promotional 
campaigns . However, IBOs do not have access to start-up aids. 
The MS, under Commission supervision, grant recognition  on the basis of the activities and the 
economic representativeness of the IBO in its ar ea of activity. Upon request from the IBO, the 
Member State concerned may make some of its arrangements binding to non-members  operators 
for a limited period. 
The analysis  of the operation of POs and IBOs shows the following aspects: 
• The CMO has actively supported the organisation of fishermen in POs. Nevertheless, the 
efficiency of POs is lower for the aquaculture sector;  
• POs are not the only collective organisation of  producers in the EU. There are other forms 
of organisation in some MS (Spain, the Un ited Kingdom, Germany) with similar missions 
to POs;  
• The financial resources granted to POs by th e EAGF and the EFF were modest and not 
always fully utilised by the MS. POs lack resour ces to organise the upstream operators in a 
proper manner and to be a relevant tool for the implementation of the CFP; 
• The effect of operational programmes on matc hing supply with demand was rather limited. 
They remained a theoretical exercise with so me marginal effects and educational value to 
POs;  
• The recognition of IBOs has been used very seldom. This may be due to the complex and 
often conflicting relations between producers and downstream operators, the low level of 
EU supply to the processing industry and th e different concentration of upstream and 
downstream operators. 
 
 57 
 Common marketing standards and consumer information  
The common marketing standards  apply to the first sale of certain fresh/chilled fisheries 
products  in the EU whatever their origin (EU and imported products). Products must comply with 
the standards in order to be marketed for human consumption within the EU. 
The purpose  of the standards is to facilitate the internal market by defining harmonised 
commercial characteristics of products, and to enab le the uniform application of the intervention 
mechanisms by making it possible to establish common prices for each category of product. 
The standards cover  47 species eligible for intervention mechanisms by freshness and size 
categories. Freshness  is adapted to the main group of species (whitefish, bluefish, crustaceans…). 
Marketing sizes  are generally expressed by weight wit hout prejudice to the minimum biological 
sizes expressed by length. For those species bearing both sizes, the minimum biological sizes in force prevail over the minimum marketing sizes in all circumstances. 
The MS are responsible for checking the conformity of products. 
There are also standards for canned products  (sardines, sardine-type products, tuna and bonito). 
They govern trade descriptions, market presenta tions, covering media and additional ingredients. 
The standards for canned sardines had to be  amended in 2003 and 2008 to bring the trade 
descriptions for sardines and sardine-type products  in conformity with the relevant international 
standard, i.e. the Codex Alimentarius Standard  STAN94 and its 2007' revision. 
As for consumer information  provisions, fisheries products falling within Chapter 3 of the 
Combined Nomenclature (i.e. live, fresh, chilled, frozen, smoked, dried, salted, in brine, crustaceans and molluscs) offered for retail sale in  the EU (either of EU  origin or imported) 
should indicate the following information through appropriate marking or labelling:  
• The commercial designation  of the species established in each Member State;  
• The production method  (caught at sea, caught in freshwater or farmed);  
• The catch area :  
¾ Products caught at sea: the area according to the FAO fishing areas;  
¾ Products caught in freshwater or farmed: a reference to the Member State or third 
country of origin of these products.   
These are minimum labelling requirements  about the main characteristics of fisheries products, 
which gives flexibility to MS and economic operators  to provide additional information tailored to 
their specific market needs. For example, operato rs may provide a more precise catch area as 
additional information to the FAO area.  
There are also provisions for the traceability  of the information throughout  all the stages of the 
marketing chain. The above labelling requirements toge ther with the scientific  name of the species 
should be available by way of labelling, pack aging or commercial documents including the 
invoice. The MS have to implement control measures for checking the application of traceability.  
The analysis  of the implementation of common marketi ng standards and consumer information is 
as follows: 
 
 58• The marketing standards and the consumer info rmation provisions are relevant in view of 
the diversity of EU markets as they have established a set of "minimum common rules." 
They have also provided wide flexibility by allowing MS and operators to go beyond them 
when they consider it relevant and necessary for the regulation of their specific markets; 
• The marketing standards have played an important role in measuring the quality of 
products (freshness) and facilitating marketing based on uniform standards; 
• The minimum marketing sizes have played an i ndirect role in preventing the marketing of 
juveniles of certain species without minimum biological sizes. Some POs have established 
their own standards or have raised the regul atory thresholds in order to achieve better 
returns on the market.  
• The implementation of consumer information provisions is incomplete and depends on the 
different MS as well as the organisation and effectiveness of national controls;  
Prices and intervention mechanism  
The intervention mechanisms are triggered when th e market prices for certain fisheries products 
fall below a given threshold, i.e. the withdrawal price  or selling price . These prices are fixed 
annually by the Commission on the basis of the guide prices , which in turn are determined 
annually by the Council for 26 fresh and 10 frozen products of EU importance. The Council also 
fixes the Community producer prices  for 5 tuna species intended for processing. 
When market prices fall and the intervention mechanisms are triggered, PO's members receive 
financial compensation. There are 4 intervention mech anisms based on a system of prices fixed at 
EU level: 
• Withdrawals: Products taken permanently off the market for human consumption, whose 
destination is destruction, animal feed (e.g. fish meals), bait or charity. The compensation 
is a percentage of the withdrawal price. The percentage diminishes as the amount of withdrawn fish increases; 
• Carry-over: Storage and/or processing of products to be reintroduced into the market at a 
later stage. The aid is related to the amount of technical and financial costs of storage and/or 
processing; 
• Private storage: Storage of products frozen on board vessels intended for reintroduction 
into the market. The aid is related to the amount of technical and financial storage costs; 
• Compensatory allowance for tuna intended for processing:  Compensation to tuna 
producers for the absence of tariff protection on imports for the tuna processing
 industry. 
On the other hand, independent withdrawals and carry-over  apply to 20 species for which there 
are substantial price differences in a single nati onal market or between the regions. The relevant 
intervention prices are fixed independently by the POs. 
The implementation of the intervention mechanisms involve the yearly adoption of: 
• A Council Regulation  fixing the guide prices and Community producer prices;  
• 6 Commission Regulations  fixing the different intervention parameters and the reference 
prices for those products which benefit from tariff reductions.  
 
 59Financial compensation for intervention is financed by the EAGF. 
Evolution FEAGA 2002-2009 by intervention mechanism
01.000.0002.000.0003.000.0004.000.0005.000.0006.000.000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Withdrawals
Carry- over
Private storage
Tuna allowance
Operational programmes
 
05.000.00010.000.00015.000.00020.000.00025.000.00030.000.00035.000.000
EUR
FR ES IE PT UK DK DE SU NL IT BE EE PL LV LT FI EL
CountryTotal FEAGA by Member State for the period 2002-2009 (Payments)
FEAGA by Member
tt
 
The analysis  of the implementation intervention mechanisms shows that: 
• The effects of withdrawals and carry-over aid on the stability of the market are weak and 
limited to a few ports and fisheries of small pelagic species, in particular sardines in Portugal and France; herring in Denmark and Ire land; and mackerel in Spain, France and 
Ireland; 
On average, the quantities withdrawn accounted  for less than 2% of the production of 
pelagic species and around 1% of the production of whitefish; 
 
 60• The compensatory allowance for tuna has lost  relevance due to the reduction of EU supply 
to the processing industry and the relocation of tuna canneries. The mechanism is also limited by it administrative complexity including the long delays in payment; 
• The distinction "EU – independent" mechanisms  is not relevant since there is no real 
"single EU market" for a given species but a diversity of national, regional or local 
markets; 
• The price system is difficult to understand by operator, in particular the calculation method 
of the guide prices. Yet operators wish to main tain the price system with some adaptations 
as a "psychological reference;" 
• The guide prices have mainly played the ro le of safety net by limiting intervention to 
exceptional circumstances; 
• The collection and centralisation of economic  information through the FIDES notification 
system is a valuable reference for the markets. 
Supply measures for fisheries and aquaculture products
 
The Community processing industry is increasingl y dependent on imports of raw material from 
third countries to satisfy their supply needs. The CMO has introduced permanent tariffs 
suspensions  or reductions for a number of products of  interest for industry including Alaska 
Pollack and cod.  
In parallel with the adoption of the current CMO, the Council agreed the opening of a multi-
annual regime of autonomous tariff quotas . Duty reductions apply to limited amounts of imports 
of certain products for which the EU production is  insufficient. This regime aims to ensure 
stability of supplies in order to enhance the competitiveness of the processing industry while 
respecting the interests of the Community catching sector.  
The current quota regime for the period 2010-2012 fo cuses on whitefish (cod, hake and substitute 
species), sensitive products (herring and tuna loins)  and shrimps. In order to benefit from the 
favourable tariff treatment, all quotas are to be us ed only for the industrial processing of fisheries 
products.  
Imported products benefiting from tariff reductions  (suspensions or quotas) must comply with 
reference prices  fixed at EU level. If the declared customs value is lower than the relevant 
reference price, the quantities concerned product do not quality for the tariff arrangement in question. The reference prices for products qualifyi ng for an EU withdrawal price are equivalent 
to the withdrawal price. 
The analysis  of the supply measures is as follows: 
• The suspensions and tariff quotas have ensured competitive supplies to certain segments of 
the EU processing industry, which could maintain their activities and jobs; 
• These measures have not significantly disrupted  the balance and prices of the main EU 
markets for fisheries and aquaculture products.  
 
61 ANNEXE 3 : 
Points forts – points faibles de l’OCM des Produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture   
(Reg 104/2000) 
 Instrument Perti-
nence Effi-
cacité Points forts Points faibles Impacts 
 
Octroi /retrait 
reconnaissance des OP  
++ 
  
+ Poids des OP dans la flotte et la production très 
significatif voire majoritaire dans les principaux pays producteurs de l'UE. 
Mouvement de structuration en OP engagé dans la 
plupart des nouveaux EM.  Reconnaissance communautaire en OP a conforté et légitimé les organisations auprès de leur s adhérents et vis-à-vis des 
acteurs institutionnels et suscité des regroupements en associations nationales, ré gionales et communautaires. Pertinence et efficacité moindres pour 
l'aquaculture.  OP pas seule voie d'organisation collective.  Statuts, représentativités, missions et capacités d'action très diverses Æ efficacité 
variable des OP. Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : 
Durabilité+
++++
 
Octroi /retrait 
reconnaissance des OIP  
_  
_ Représentativité forte des OP existantes dans leur 
secteur. Possibilité peu utilisée.  
Reconnaissance à posteriori.  Actions limitées par les divergences d'intérêts des membres Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : -
---Organisation du secteur ( OP et OIP)  
Octroi /retrait 
reconnaissance des OP transnationales  
+  
_  Le système en place présente des 
obstacles à ces organisations transnationales (fonctionnement des aides financières à la constitution par exemple). Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : -
---
 
Extention de 
règles  
+  
?  Mesure est très peu mobilisée.  
Procédure trop complexe. Durabilité -
 
Programme 
d’appui à la qualité 
 (PAQ)  
_  
_  Dispositif très conceptuel et complexe 
dans sa mise en œuvre. Peu pertinent au regard des attentes de OP, en recherche de soutiens plus opérationnels pour le financement d'actions plus que de planification.  Faib le promotion faite 
par les EM. Compétitivité:
Qualité:-
-Actions des Organisations de producteurs  
Programme 
opérationnel de pêche  (POCD)  
+  
+/- Effets principalement péda gogiques.  Amélioration de 
la qualité des Programme Op érationnel de Campagne 
de Pêche (POCP) avec les années.  Démarches collectives favorables à l'innovation, et donc à la compétitivité. Souvent uniquement conceptuel, les OP 
manquant de moyens et d'expertise pour les réaliser.  Pas déterminant dans l'adaptation de l'offre à la demande.  Pertinence des POCP affectée par les modalités de mise en œuvre : pas d'évaluations ni de consolidations des Plans pour les pêcheries partagées, décalage de calendrier avec l'attribution des quotas, faibles concertations avec les organismes de recherche ou les acteurs d'aval.  Efficacité dépendante des dynamiques et de la cohérence des démarches des producteurs. Stabilité du 
marché :
Compétitivité
Revenus :
Durabilité+
+
++Prix et interventions Fixation des prix d’orientation et interventions  
+  
+ Point de référence commun.  Instrument probablement 
le plus utilisé par les acteurs économiques.  Agissent plutôt comme des prix plancher.  Rôle de filet de sécurité et de limitation de l'intervention à des situations exceptionnelles.  Maintien souhaité par les acteurs. Difficulté d'établir des référentiels 
pertinents sur une palette de marchés de première vente caractérisée par une forte volatilité de l'offre et des prix et l'existence fréquente de plusieurs marchés pour  une même espèce sur un même point de vente (marchés du frais/ transformation, niv eaux de qualité …).  
Effet limité sur le prix du marché. Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :+
+
 
 62 
Compensation 
financière pour le retrait  
+/-  
+ Retraits adaptés pour les produits inadaptés à la 
transformation, pour les armateurs sans unité de congélation et pour approvi sionner l'industrie de 
l'alimentation animale. Distinction mesures 
communautaires/mesures autonomes pas justifiée car il n'existe pas réellement de marché communautaire.  Effets socio-économiques globalement marginaux et limités aux quelques ports et pêcheries de petits pélagiques qui les ont mobilisés.  Concernent quelques % des recettes des armements bénéficiaires. Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité+
+
+
 
Aides au report  
++  
+ Reports adaptés pour les produits congelés vendus à la 
transformation. Distinction mesures 
communautaires/mesures autonomes pas justifiée car il n'existe pas réellement de marché communautaire.  Effets socio-économiques globalement limités aux quelques ports et pêcheries de petits pélagiques qui les ont mobilisés.  Concernent quelques % des recettes des armements bénéficiaires. Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité:+
+
+
 
Retrait et 
report autonome  
+  
+ Idem interventions communautaires. Idem interventions communautaires. Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité:+
+
+
 
Aide au 
stockage  
_  
?  Ne concerne que les produits congelés 
en mer. 
 
Compensation 
pour le thon  
_  
_  Pertinence affaiblie avec la réduction 
de l'approvisionnement communautaire de l'industrie de la délocalisation des conserveries.  Efficacité faible compte tenu de sa complexité de mise en œuvre.  "Aubaine" retardée du fait des décalages importants entre le paiement et l'événement déclencheur. Stabilité :
Revenus :-
+
 
Fixation de 
prix de référence  
+  
? Outil approprié pour protég er l'UE contre des 
importations à des prix anormalement bas. Concerne peu de produits. Compétitivité: +Régime des échanges  
Suspensions et 
contingents tarifaires  
+  
+ A permis d'assurer un approvisionnement compétitif de 
certains secteurs de l'industrie de transformation communautaire (poissons blancs et saumon).  Effet indirect sur le maintien des emplois dans la transformation.  N'a pas pert urbé les équilibres et les 
prix des marchés principaux des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture communautaire. Pas d'effet notable pour l'industrie de la 
conserve.  Diminution de la pertinence de cet outil avec la libéralisation des échanges.   Suspensions et contingents sont parfois redondants. Compétitivité:
Emplois:++
+
 
Normes de 
commercialisation  
+  
+ Homogénéisation des normes.   Grande flexibilité pour 
les EM et les acteurs des filières.  Barrière à la commercialisation des petites tailles. Faiblesse des contrôles.  Imprécision 
des catégories de fraîcheur.  Méthodes de tri peu homogènes.  Coexistence de tailles minimales de commercialisation et de tailles minimales de débarquement parfois incohérentes. Compétitivité
Qualité : 
Durabilité+
++Normes de commercialisation et 
info. Aux consommateur  
Etiquetage 
obligatoire  
+  
+/- Dynamique pédagogique de long terme: limitation à 
quelques informations clés cohérente avec la faible connaissance générale des consommateurs.  Socle actuel pouvant être amené à évoluer en fonction du contexte et des attentes des marchés. Efficacité variable et affectée par la 
réalité et l'ampleur de leur mise en œuvre dans les EM.   Hétérogénéité des contrôles. Information des 
consommateurs+
 
 
 63ANNEXE 4: 
Points de vue des acteurs sur l’Organisation Commune des Marchés (OCM) des produits 
de la pêche et de l’aquaculture et sur la réforme de la Politique de Marché 
Cette annexe constitue une synthèse des avis ém is par les différents acteurs à travers les EM 
dans différents contextes et à différentes pé riodes : enquête auprès des Organisations de 
Producteurs (OP) et autorités nationales conduites dans le cadre de l’évaluation de l’OCM et 
consultations dans le cadre du Livre Vert sur la réforme de la PCP (2009).  
1. L’organisation du secteur: le rôle des Organisations de Producteurs (OP) 
Un fort consensus se dégage aussi bien concerna nt le rôle central à jouer par les OP dans la 
mise en œuvre de l’OCM, et plus largement de la PCP, que sur les manques de moyens actuels. 
Les constats  
Les acteurs s’accordent sur l’impact plutôt positif, des OP dans tous les domaines, même si 
l’efficacité de celles-ci est très variable et dépend de nombreux facteurs (taille de l’OP, représentativité, existence ou non de structures  parallèles, qualité des dirigeants…). Les 
contextes historiques et réglementaires de ch aque EM influent également sur les moyens 
d’action et la légitimité des OP. En Allemagne pa r exemple, les filières étaient déjà structurées 
autour de coopératives qui ont souvent continué d’exister parallèlement aux OP, la reconnaissance de celles-ci ayant servi à percevoi r les subventions pour la flotte. Par ailleurs, 
la commercialisation repose en grande partie su r des contrats passés avec l’industrie et les 
mesures d’extension des règles sont contraires à la législation nationale. Dans ce cas, les OP sont jugées par les acteurs institutionnels comme  étant surtout utiles pour la gestion des quotas 
(stabilité du marché et gestion de la ressource) . En revanche, l’exemple d’OP transnationale 
pour les pêcheurs de crevettes en permettant  de nouvelles coopérations a été jugée efficace 
pour la structuration du secteur. De même, les OP aquacoles créées en Irlande et au Royaume-
Uni, alors qu’aucune structure préalable n’existait, ont permis de mettre en place de véritables stratégies commerciales pour les filières de salm oniculture en soutenant l’orientation celles-ci 
vers du bio et de l’écolabel. La meilleure valorisation des produits a eu des impacts 
perceptibles dans tous les domaines (marché, compétitivité, environnement, consommateur). Le même constat est fait en Pologne, où la filière était très peu structurée avant l’élargissement.  
Les avis sur les POCP convergent également. Selon les autorités nationales, ils peuvent avoir 
constitué un outil de réflexion et de sensibilisation concernant l’adaptation de l’offre à la demande et la gestion de la ressource, comme ils peuvent avoir été traités comme un exercice 
purement formel. Dans tous les cas, il est jugé  qu’une planification annuelle de la production 
correspond peu avec la réalité des activités de pêche.  
Les constats sur les mesures d’extension des règles  sont plus partagés. Dans la plupart des cas, 
leur mise en œuvre est considérée complexe, pour tant lorsqu’elles ont été utilisées, elles ont été 
considérées par les OP comme un outil efficace. 
Les programmes d’appui à la qualité en revanc he sont considérés par tous les acteurs 
institutionnels et opérationnels comme un exercice trop lourd à mettre en œuvre. 
Le manque de moyens des OP pour intervenir de façon plus visible dans tous les domaines est 
également mentionné par une grande majorité des acteurs, institutionnels ou opérationnels. La question de la capacité des OP à intervenir da ns la commercialisation met ainsi en évidence 
l’écart entre les attentes des différents acteurs et la situation actuelle. En effet, l’enquête auprès 
 
 64des OP, réalisée dans le cadre de l’évaluati on de l’OCM, montre que le renforcement des 
capacités de commercialisation représente la première motivation pour créer une OP ou pour adhérer à une OP existante. Pourtant, la difficu lté à jouer un véritable rôle dans ce domaine est 
mentionnée par les acteurs institutionnels comme une des principales faiblesses des OP. 
Les propositions
 
La très grande majorité des acteurs sont favorables au renforcement du rôle des OP et à un 
soutien accru. La question du soutien financier, au moins sous la forme d’un allongement du financement des POCP est appuyée par les OP et leur représentation au niveau européen, mais 
fait moins l’unanimité des autorités nationales. Les avis à ce sujet dépendent également du degré de structuration et de concentration des filières dans les EM et de la capacité des OP à s’autofinancer. 
Le fait d’encourager la création d’OIP et d’OP  transnationales ne rencontre pas d’opposition au 
niveau institutionnel, mais au sujet des OIP, le s acteurs opérationnels insistent sur la difficulté 
à regrouper des acteurs aux intérêts divergents au sein d’une même organisation. Les représentants de l’aquaculture (OP et FEAP) r ecommandent également le renforcement de ces 
structures dans leur secteur où elles restent peu représentatives. 
La question des critères de reconnaissan ce est mentionnée surtout par les acteurs 
institutionnels, mais avec des avis différents su r l’orientation à donner. Le Danemark ou les 
Pays Bas mettent en avant l’augmentation de la  taille des OP afin d’augmenter leur pouvoir de 
négociation au sein des filières. La volonté d’homogénéiser le rôle et le statut des OP n’est proposée que par la France, où on peut observer des différences considérables entre 2 OP du 
même secteur, dans la même zone géographique.  
Synthèse des positions et analyses exprimées sur le rôle des OP par objectif poursuivi 
 Aspects positifs Aspects négatifs Pertinence de 
l’instrument Propositions Stabilité et approvisionnement du marché ►  Structuration des filières et 
donc à la stabilité du marché, principalement dans les régions/EM où celles-ci étaient précédemment peu structurées ► Adaptation de l’offre à la 
demande (limitation des débarquements d’espèces posant des problèmes de commercialisation) et la valorisation des produits ►  Les OP ont joué un rôle 
significatif dans la gestion des déséquilibres ponctuels dus à la surproduction ►  Les mesures d’extension, 
ont permis une meilleure efficacité des OP en termes de planification  ►  Retraits / reports servent de 
filet de sécurité. ►  Les OP peuvent faire double 
emploi dans les EM où celles-ci se superposent à des structures préexistantes ►  La multiplicité des OP de petites 
tailles dans certaines régions / EM empêche celles-ci d’avoir un impact significatif sur le marché ►  Les POCP sont parfois perçus 
comme un outil purement formel et ne correspondent pas nécessairement à la demande ► Les mesures d’extension dont la 
mise en œuvre est généralement perçue comme contraignante, sont peu utilisées ►  Les OP sont généralement 
perçues comme ayant un impact positif, notamment à travers les POCP, Cet impact reste cependant limité compte tenu de l’importance des autres facteurs (poids de l’aval dans les filières, Total Allowable Catches (TAC),  régimes d’échanges, conditions climatiques, etc..). ►  Impact très variable des OP 
d’un EM à l’autre (historique des filières, mise en œuvre de la PCP…) et d’une OP à l’autre.  ►  Les mesures d’extension sont 
considérées très pertinentes dans les EM où elles sont mises en œuvre et ne sont pas un sujet ailleurs. Sur le fond :
 
►  Renforcer le rôle des OP dans 
la gestion du marché, notamment au niveau de la première vente ►  Homogénéiser le rôle et le 
statut des OP ►  Améliorer la capacité d’action 
des OP auprès des non-membres ►  Faciliter la transmission 
d’information de l’aval vers les pêcheurs ►  Impliquer les OP dans les 
systèmes de certification Sur la mise en œuvre
 : 
►  Revoir les critères de 
reconnaissance des OP ►  Maintenir l’aide aux POCP, 
éventuellement sous condition de publication ► Faciliter le recours aux mesures 
d’extension 
 
 65 Aspects positifs Aspects négatifs Pertinence de 
l’instrument Propositions Compétitivité des filières ►  Les OP qui se sont 
diversifiées dans la transformation et la commercialisation (ex : salmoniculture en Irlande et au RU, pélagiques au DK) ont permis d’améliorer la compétitivité de leur filière ►  L’organisation préexistante des 
filières a souvent empêché les OP de jouer un véritable rôle dans la commercialisation, notamment lorsque la première vente repose principalement sur les criées ►  pas d’impact sur les coûts de 
production ►  Les OP n’ont pas permis 
d’améliorer la transparence sur les prix entre les différents stades de la filière ►  Les PAQ étaient trop lourds 
pour être efficaces ►  Quelques OP qui ont pu 
jouer un rôle dans l’aval de leur filière en interv enant directement 
dans la transformation et la commercialisation, ont pu avoir un impact en termes de compétitivité. Cependant, les OP ne sont généralement pas perçues comme les acteurs les plus pertinents dans ce domaine. Sur le fond 
: 
►  accroître le rôle des OP dans la 
maîtrise des coûts de production   Sur la mise en œuvre 
: 
►  Clarifier l’applicabilité des 
règles de concurrence aux OIP, OP transnationales, et associations d’OP ►  Renforcer le rôle des OP par 
une adhésion obligatoire Structure économique et sociale du secteur ►  Les OP ont pu contribuer 
dans certains cas au maintien ou à l’amélioration du revenu des producteurs (intervention, structuration des filières, revalorisation des prix en première vente, amélioration de la compétitivité) ►  La création de nouvelles OP 
ou OIP, ainsi que les stratégies de diversification d’OP existantes ont pu créer des emplois ►  Les OP n’ont pas pour fonction 
d’améliorer le revenu des producteurs ►  Les OP n’ont souvent pas les 
moyens d’avoir un réel impact sur les filières et par conséquent sur l’emploi ou le revenu dans celles-ci ►  D’autres facteurs sont plus 
déterminants  Les OP n’ont qu’un impact 
indirect sur l’emploi ou les revenus, qui dépend de leur capacité à intervenir sur les marchés et sur la compétitivité des filières.  Les OP doivent également faire face à un paradoxe : malgré la diminution constante du nombre d’emplois, la main-d’œuvre est de plus en plus difficile à trouver.  Sur le fond 
: 
►  Renforcer le rôle et les moyens 
d’action des OP et accroître le soutien financier aux OP y compris dans le secteur aquacole ►  Contrôler et évaluer les OP 
►  Concentrer le rôle des OIP sur 
la collecte et la diffusion d’information  ►  Encourager les coopérations 
(OIP, OP transnationales, etc.) Sur la mise en œuvre
 : 
►  Revoir les critères de 
reconnaissances (taille économique minimum) ►  Instaurer une adhésion 
obligatoire Environnement  ►  Les POCP peuvent 
permettre une gestion conjointe de la ressource et encourager les comportements responsables ►  Les OP peuvent jouer un 
rôle lorsqu’elles détiennent la gestion des quotas ►  Les OP peuvent jouer un 
rôle dans la mise en place d’écolabels ►  Les POCP peuvent être 
pratiqués comme un exercice purement formel ►  Certaines OP ont rencontré des 
difficultés dans l’application des POCP (Portugal) ►  Les OP n’ont pas permis 
d’éradiquer la pêche illégale  ►  L’impact potentiel des OP 
sur l’environnement varie selon les EM, notamment en fonction du mode de gestion des quotas, et en fonction des OP, de leur volonté et de leur capacité à intervenir sur leur propre filière. Par ailleurs se pose la question du contrôle de ses adhérents par l’OP elle-même et des moyens de sanctions. Sur le fond 
: 
►  Renforcer le rôle des OP dans 
la gestion de la ressource  ►  Faire des POCP un élément 
central de la gestion durable de la pêche ►  Envisager une aide pour la 
certification environnementale des OP Sur la mise en œuvre
 : 
►  Revoir les critères de 
reconnaissance des OP (obligation de gestion du marché et de la ressource) Consommateurs ►  Certaines OP ont porté des 
projets d’amélioration de la qualité, voire ont mis en place des normes de commercialisation avant que celles-ci soient réglementées (Danemark) ►  Les PAQ étaient trop lourds à 
mettre en œuvre  ►  L’impact des OP sur les 
consommateurs paraît en général limité ou marginal. ►  Les fonds structurels sont 
jugés plus pertinents dans ce domaine.   Sur le fond
 
►  Renforcer le rôle des OP sur la 
qualité Sur la mise en œuvre
 
►  Augmenter l’aide sur les 
actions collectives 
 
2. Interventions 
Les interventions, qui regroupent le régime des prix  et le système des retraits et reports, sont 
globalement considérées comme ayant un impact pos itif sur la stabilité des prix et le maintien 
du revenu des producteurs. Cependant si le régi me des prix est largement soutenu, les avis 
divergent sur la pertinence et les effets des retraits et des reports. Le recours aux retraits tend à 
 
 66diminuer au profit des reports, leur part dans les interventions passant de 76% en 2001 à 42% 
en 2007. 
Les constats  
Le régime des prix communautaires, et notamment  le prix d’orientation, est considéré par la 
majorité des acteurs comme une référence commune  qui participe à la stabilisation des prix de 
première vente. Par son impact psychologique sur les acteurs, il joue le rôle d’un prix plancher. 
Son mode de calcul est cependant jugé peu transparent et perfectible. 
Bien qu’ils représentent une faible part de la  production communautaire (moins de 1% de la 
valeur des espèces éligibles), les retraits et les reports ont permis d’éviter les déséquilibres d’approvisionnement et de maintenir les reve nus des producteurs. Ce constat est surtout 
partagé par les acteurs des Etats qui y ont eu recours (Danemark) ou qui les utilisent 
actuellement (France, Espagne, Portugal, Irlande).  Les retraits, qui concernent essentiellement 
des pêcheries de petits pélagiques en France et au  Portugal. Les avis sur les conséquences des 
reports sur le marché divergent : risque d’effet d’aubaine ou mécanisme de marché à terme.  
Les propositions
 
L’évolution du système des interventions divise  les Etats Membres. Certains EM du nord de 
l’Europe ayant faiblement recours aux interventi ons sont favorables à la suppression totale des 
retraits et reports, voire à la disparition du sy stème de prix. Pour compenser cette suppression, 
la mise en place d’aides directes aux pêcheurs est mentionnée. 
Les OP, soutenues par les Etats utilisant les interventions, sont pour leur maintien avec des 
aménagements. La suppression des retraits au  profit des reports fait la quasi-unanimité. 
Certains acteurs souhaitent une plus gra nde implication des OP, en supprimant les 
interventions communautaires et en ne conservant que les interventions autonomes. Ils souhaitent également une plus grande liberté pour les OP de choisir les espèces qu’elles 
souhaitent soutenir, ainsi que plus de flexibilité dans l’application des reports. La mise en place 
d’un système spécifique pour la gestion des cr ises a été soulevée. Les OP souhaitent par 
ailleurs une intégration des opérations de stockage privé dans le système des reports ainsi que le remplacement de l’indemnité compensatoire thon par du stockage privé.  
L’idée de conserver un prix d’orientation co mmunautaire rencontre un large consensus. 
Plusieurs acteurs souhaitent toutefois que son mode de calcul soit revu, et devienne plus 
transparent. La suppression des prix spécifique s pour les régions éloignées des marchés ne 
suscite pas d’opposition. 
Enfin, les représentants des aquaculteurs veulent une adaptation des mesures à leur secteur et 
souhaitent notamment pouvoir recourir à des opérations de report. 
 
 67Synthèse des analyses et postions exprimées concernant les interventions 
 Aspects positifs Aspects négatifs Pert inence de l’instrument Propositions Stabilité et approvisionnement du 
marché ►  Contribuent à la stabilisation 
des prix, au moins grâce à leur impact psychologique comme prix-plancher (référentiel pour l’industrie).  ►  Outil utile pour répondre à 
des perturbations ponctuelles ou réguler l’approvisionnement de certaines pêcheries ( notamment petits pélagiques). ►  Les prix communautaires 
sont jugés déconnectés du marché.  ►  Les retraits et les reports 
présentent n’incitent pas la valorisation de produits qui soit adaptés aux exigences du marché.  ►  Ne s’applique pas aux 
produits d’élevage ►  Le système d’intervention 
est globalement perçu comme un élément stabilisateur. ►   Le système est perçu 
comme un élément d’information très utile pour l’ensemble de la filière.  ►  Les retraits et reports 
permettent de limiter les déséquilibres dans l’approvisionnement, mais limité à quelques cas particuliers (espèces, périodes, ports).  ►  Maintien  
►  Adaptation pour coller aux 
réalités des marchés et éviter le gaspillage.  ►  Extension des aides au retrait 
pour les produits de l’aquaculture Compétitivité des 
filières   ►  Problèmes de compétitivité 
de l’amont liés aux coûts de production plutôt qu’à la valorisation des produits. ►  Le système d’intervention 
n’est pas jugé pertinent pour améliorer la compétitivité de la filière, car il ne concerne pas les causes du manque de compétitivité du secteur.   ►  Maintien  
►  Adaptation pour tenir compte 
des attentes des acheteurs. Structure 
économique et 
sociale du secteur ►  Soutien aux revenus des 
pêcheurs.  ►  L’existence d’un prix de 
retrait est perçu comme un garde-fou pour l’ensemble de la filière.  ►  Pertinent pour maintenir le 
revenu des producteurs dans quelques cas particuliers ►  Permet d’empêcher une 
forte baisse des prix mais l’impact est cependant limité compte tenu de contraintes existantes (législatives et financières) ►  Maintien  
►  Adaptation pour garantir un 
prix minima et assurer un niveau de revenu. ►  Augmentation des moyens 
financiers (FEAGA). ►  Assouplissement des règles 
existantes (plafonds). Environnement  ►  Neutre   
►  Impact sur les captures 
rejetées en mer   ►  Le système des retraits et 
reports peut conduire à une mauvaise gestion des ressources.   
 ►  Le régime des 
interventions n’est pas pertinent pour mettre en place une gestion durable des ressources.    
►  Adaptation pour coller aux 
réalités des marchés et éviter le gaspillage. Qualité, information, 
normes) ►  Ecarte les produits de 
mauvaise qualité, non éligibles aux interventions.    
        ►  Globalement pas d’impact 
sur la qualité des produits.     
 ►  Adaptation pour tenir compte 
des attentes des acheteurs. 
 
3. Information aux consommateurs 
L’obligation de fournir un minimum d’informati on aux consommateurs n’est remise en cause 
par aucun acteur. Son utilité apparaît aussi pour les tr ansactions au sein de la filière. Il semble 
également acquis que le système peut être  amélioré, que ce soit pour le contenu des 
informations ou pour le respect de son application. 
Les constats  
L’ensemble des acteurs s’accorde sur le manque de précision ou de pertinence des 
informations apportées au consommateur. L’indication du mode de production (pêche ou 
aquaculture) semble être l’élément le plus pertin ent d’information. Au contraire, concernant la 
provenance, l’indication de la zone FAO a pparait trop imprécise pour avoir fournir une 
information adéquate et utile au consommateur. Les informations minimales constituent 
 
 68également un moyen pour le secteur de la tran sformation et la distribution de contrôler 
l’origine et la provenance de leur matière première. La dénomination commerciale n’est pas remise en cause mais elle est parfois perçue  comme complexe en raison du nombre élevé de 
dénominations commerciales définies par les EM.  
Plusieurs acteurs, notamment ceux où un système pl us contraignant existait déjà (Espagne), 
soulignent que  les informations minimales ne permettent pas de différencier les produits. De 
plus, les consommateurs sont sensibles à d’au tres critères que le mode de production ou la 
provenance des produits : campagnes menées par des ONG, labellisation des produits (Label Rouge, bio, écolabels) ou présence d’une marque commerciale. 
Les propositions
 
Faire référence à des zones de pêche plus précise s fait l’unanimité, par exemple en se référant 
aux mers locales (Baltique, mer du Nord, Manc he…). Plusieurs acteurs s’accordent sur la 
nécessité d’une base de données communautaire  des dénominations commerciales, basée sur 
les noms scientifiques récents des espèces. 
Quelques pays souhaitent renforcer l’information et la traçabilité des produits en indiquent par 
exemple la date de capture, le lieu de débarque ment, la nationalité du bateau, et renforcer la 
distinction entre les produits frais et les produits décongelés ; mais également étendre 
l’obligation d’information à la restauration, not amment pour la distinction entre sauvage et 
élevage. 
Les représentants des OP et des aquaculteurs soutiennent la mise en place d’un écolabel 
communautaire ou de critères minimum de contrôles ainsi que des signes de qualité régionaux. 
Enfin, l’information des consommateurs pourrait être renforcée par des campagnes 
communautaires afin d’améliorer l’image du s ecteur et des produits, et de promouvoir la 
consommation de poisson. 
 
Synthèse des analyses et positions exprimées concernant les informations aux consommateurs 
 Aspects positifs Aspects négatifs Pert inence de l’instrument Propositions Environnement  ►  Pertinence des informations 
relatives au mode de production et à la zone d’origine   ►  Imprécisions et difficultés de 
compréhension des informations relatives au mode de production et à la zone d’origine   ►  Utile  pour instaurer une 
consommation responsable des produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture (y compris biologique).  ►  Promouvoir des critères 
minimum pour les écolabels  ►  Campagnes d’information pour  
promouvoir la consommation responsable de  poisson. ►  Renforcer la lutte contre la 
pêche IUU (certification) Qualité, information, 
normes) ►  Distinction sauvage/élevage 
pertinente  ►  L’étiquetage contribue à 
l’amélioration de la connaissance des consommateurs  ►  Permet un meilleur contrôle 
des matières premières. ►  Zones FAO n’ont pas de 
significations pour les consommateurs ►  L’étiquetage ne renseigne 
pas sur les qualités intrinsèques des produits. ►  L’information est inexistante 
en restauration. ►  La traçabilité est insuffisante 
et les informations parfois incorrectes. ►  Globalement l’information 
fournie renseigne peu.  ►  Les labels (écolabel, bio, 
signes de qualité) constituent un critère plus important dans le choix des consommateurs. ►  Les mentions légales 
fournissent un minimum de traçabilité au sein de la filière. ►  Développer des informations 
plus précises (zone de pêche, de débarquement, date de capture, origine du bateau) et plus robustes. ►  Renforcer les contrôles  
►  Appliquer à la restauration 
►  Campagnes d’information et 
promouvoir la consommation de poisson ►  Soutenir des initiatives pour 
des labels de qualité régionaux 
 
4. Normes de commercialisation 
Les normes de commercialisation sont considér ées par la majorité des acteurs comme une 
 
 69référence pour évaluer la qualité des produits, et donc comme un socle minimum à conserver. 
Leur impact réel sur cette qualité est lui moins unanime. 
Les constats  
Les OP et la plupart des autorités nationales considèrent que les normes de commercialisation 
ont permis d’établir un référentiel commun pour apprécier la qualité des produits. De ce fait, 
elles ont permis d’homogénéiser l’offre et limité les distorsions sur le marché intérieur. 
Nombreux EM et opérateurs considèrent que le s normes ont contribué à une amélioration du 
calibrage et de la qualité générale de la matière  première. Certains EM contestent la pertinence 
des critères retenus, qui sont utilisés pour les retraits, mais ne correspondent pas aux besoins de l’aval.  
Le point faible le plus souvent mentionné est l’incohérence qui peut exister entre les tailles de 
commercialisation et les tailles minimales de débarquement. Les premières peuvent en effet être exprimées en poids, alors que les secondes le sont en longueur, et que ces deux données ne 
sont pas toujours corrélées. 
Les propositions
 
L’harmonisation des tailles de débarquement et des tailles commerciales fait consensus. Par ailleurs certains EM souhaitent une classificati on de fraicheur plus précise, la majorité des 
produits étant classés en A 
Le renforcement des contrôles pour s’assurer de l’ application des règles existantes est souvent 
mentionné. 
Synthèse des analyses et positions exprimées concernant les normes de commercialisation 
 Aspects positifs Aspects négatifs Pert inence de l’instrument Propositions Stabilité et 
approvisionnemen
t du marché  ►  Référence commune  
►  Homogénéisation de l’offre 
sur le marché intérieur. 
►  Impact positif sur la qualité 
et le calibrage des produits.  ►  Aucun impact sur les prix. 
►  Ne constituent pas un outil 
marketing. 
►  Application pas toujours 
rigoureuse. ► Impact positif sur le 
marché. Elles sont considérées comme une référence commune d’évaluation de la qualité des produits. ►  Pas de propositions. Compétiti
vité des 
filières     ►  Appliquer les normes de 
commercialisation à tous les produits   Environneme
nt   ►  Tailles commerciales dans 
quelques cas incohérentes avec les tailles minimales de débarquement 
 ►  Pas un outil d’amélioration 
de la durabilité de la pêche.  ►  Harmoniser les tailles 
minimales de commercialisation avec les tailles minimales de débarquement. 
 
 70Qualité, information, normes) ►  Facteur d’homogénéisation 
de l’offre 
►  Facteur d’amélioration de la 
qualité globale des produits. ►  Contrôles insuffisants. 
► Critères retenus sont 
pertinents pour le système de retraits que pour l’aval de la filière. ►  Rôle positif sur la qualité. 
►  Référence commune 
d’évaluation de cette qualité. 
 ►  Contrôles plus poussés. 
►  Fixer des normes pour les 
produits d’aquaculture. 
►  Utiliser le système QIM 
(Quality Index Method) pour évaluer la fraîcheur. 
►  Augmenter le nombre de 
catégories. 
 
 
Régime d’échange avec les pays tiers 
Dans leurs commentaires, nombreux acteurs ne  font pas la différence entre les mesures 
tarifaires autonomes qui relèvent de la Politique de Marché (contingents et suspensions), et celles relevant de la Politique Commerciale, (négociations bilatérales, multilatérales, mesures de sauvegarde...).   
L’ensemble des acteurs s’accorde sur l’utilité de s contingents et des suspensions autonomes 
pour l’approvisionnement de l’industrie de transf ormation à prix compétitifs. Les représentants 
des industries de transformations et les autor ités des Etats où ils sont le plus présents 
considèrent cependant que les mesures sont in suffisantes, alors que les représentants des 
producteurs restent attentifs aux risques de concurrence accrue.  
Les constats
 
La suppression des droits douanes par voie de contingents et des suspensions autonomes a 
permis l’approvisionnement des industries de tr ansformations en matière première bon marché, 
et a de ce fait favorisé leur compétitivité et la consolidation des emplois qui lui sont associés. 
Si ce constat est partagé par tous, les transformateurs et les Etats Membres où cette industrie est importante regrettent que les contingents soient trop restreints et ne couvrent pas 
l’ensemble des besoins d’approvisionnement en vol ume et espèces. D’autres EM craignent que 
ces importations exempts de droits de douanes n’aient un impact défavorable sur la production 
communautaires. De ce point de vue, les prix de référence, bien qu’ils soient peu utilisés, sont 
perçus comme une protection contre le risque de prix anormalement bas. 
Le secteur aquacole et les EM concernés c onsidèrent que les mesures de sauvegarde ont 
contribué à maintenir la production europ éenne. Les représentants des aquaculteurs 
souhaiteraient voir ces mesures appliquées plus  régulièrement. D’une manière générale, la 
mise en œuvre des ces mesures est jugée trop lourde et trop lente pour pouvoir réagir 
efficacement aux changements du marché. 
Les propositions
 
Les opinions divergent sur l’évolution souhaitable des instruments tarifaires autonomes dans la 
politique de marché des produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture. Alors que certains EM sont favorables à une large ouverture tarifaire pour  tous les produits, les producteurs et les 
transformateurs soutiennent une utilisation diffé renciés des instruments tarifaires autonomes 
suivant les segments, espèces et besoins du ma rché. Enfin certains EM ont indiqué que les 
produits importés sans droits de douanes devraient répondre aux mêmes exigences que la production communautaire, en termes de qualité sanitaire, de conditions sociales et de respect de la durabilité de la ressource. 
 
 71ANNEX 5: 
Presentation and comparison of the CMO for Fruit and Vegetables and the CMO for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture 
 
Fruit and Vegetables (F&V) and Fisheries and Aquaculture (F&A) products are characterised 
by common features and challenges: 
• A significant number of products and a wide variety of production modes  
• Importance of fresh thus perishable products  
• A large number of producers organisations with great variations between MS  
• Concentration of retails  
• Exposure to price crises  
• Positive image of the products  
• Both F&V and F&A markets are regulated within a Common Market Organisation but 
with very different financial support: some 800 million euros (excluding direct aid) for 
F&V against some 15 million euros for F&A CMO  
The reform of F&V CMO in 2007 addressed the following issues 
• Concentration of the retailers and at same time insufficient grouping of supply 
• Aid for products intended for processing not consistent with reformed CAP 
• The need for an efficient market crises  management in the F&V sector, although 
limited 
• Environmental concerns. Need to improve the current commitments 
• Need for administrative and management “Simplification” 
Objectives and structure of the 2007 F&V sector CMO reform 
• To improve EU F&V sector competitiveness and market orientation or, in other words, 
to contribute to achieving sustainable producti on that is competitive both on internal and 
external markets. 
• To reduce fluctuations in F&V producers' income resulting from crises 
• To increase consumption of F&V in the EU 
• To continue the efforts made by the sector to maintain and protect the environment 
• To simplify and where possible reduce the administrative burden for all concerned. 
 
 
 72The 2007 reform provides for new measures set out to encourage growers to join Producer 
Organisations  and POs are offered a wider range of tools for crisis management . The F&V 
sector is integrated into the SPS . EU funding for promotion and organic production  is 
increased, and a minimum level of environmental spending  is required. Export subsidies for 
F&V are abolished . In detail: 
• Producer Organisations (POs): POs gain great er flexibility and their rules have been 
simplified There is additional support (60 per cent Community co-financing rather than 50 
percent) in areas where production covered by PO s is less than 20 %, and, in particular, in 
the new MS, to encourage the creation of  POs. MS and POs develop Operational 
Programmes based on a national strategy. 
• Crisis Management: this is organised through POs (50 percent financed by the 
Community budget). Tools include green harvesting/non-harvesting, promotion and 
communication tools in times of crisis, traini ng, harvest insurance, help in securing bank 
loans and financing of the administrative co sts of setting up mutual funds. Withdrawals 
can be carried out by POs with 50 % co-fin ancing. Withdrawals for free distribution to 
schools etc is 100 % paid by the Community. Co mmunity aid to POs remains limited to 4.1 
% of the total value of marketed produce, but  this may rise to 4.6 % provided that the 
excess is used only for crisis prevention and management.  
• Inclusion of F&V in the Single Payment Scheme (SPS): land covered by fruit and 
vegetables has become eligible for paymen t entitlements under the decoupled aid scheme 
which applies in other farm sectors. All ex isting support for processed F&V is decoupled 
and the national budgetary ceilings for the SPS is increased. The total amount transferred to the SPS is around 800 million euros.  
• Environmental measures: The inclusion of fruit and vegetables in the SPS means that 
Cross Compliance is compulsory for those fa rmers receiving direct payments. In addition, 
POs must devote at least 10 % of expend iture in each Operational Program to 
environmental measures. There is a 60 % Community co-financing rate for organic 
production in each Operational Program. 
• Encouraging greater consumption: POs ar e allowed to include promotion of F&V 
consumption in their operational programs40.  
                                                
 
40 Additional 6 million euros for the promotion of F&V targeted at children in educational establishments and 8 
million euros budget for free distribution of F&V to sc hools, hospitals and charitable bodies, which will be 
 
 73                                                                                                                                                           
100 percent financed by the Community  up to a limit of 5 percent of th e quantity marketed by a PO. The 
Council asked the Commission to carry out a feasibility st udy into the creation of a school fruit and vegetable 
scheme. 
 
74 Evolution of objectives of the regime govern ing both sectors (F&V and F&A) since the 
1970s  
Fruits and &Vegetables CMO Fishery and aquaculture CMO 
1970s 
Council Regulation (EEC) 1035/72 
 (repealed by Council Regulation 2200/96) 
- stabilize market prices  
- avoid the destruction of withdrawn products  Council Regulation (EEC) 2142/70   
- apply common marketing standards;  
- create producers’ organisations (POs);  
- establish a price support system based on intervention 
mechanisms (withdrawal prices, carry-over aid and aid for private storage) or compensation (tuna destined for canning);  
- set up a system of exchanges with non-EU countries 
1990s 
Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96  
(amended by Council Regulation 2699/00) 
Objectives, besides 1035/72 objectives:  
- limit quantities withdrawn from the market  
- environmental protection during destruction of 
withdrawn products  
Council Regulation (EC) 2699/00 
Objectives, besides 2200/96 objectives:  
- Avoid withdrawal of citrus fruit that could be 
processed  Council Regulation (EC) 104/00  
- price stability;  
- optimal balance between supply and demand;  
- strengthened competitiveness;  
- ensure the supply of the EU processing industry while 
respecting the interest of EU producers;  
proper information to the consumer.  
Objectives after Agenda 2000 
Council Regulation (EC) 1182/2007  
- Strengthen market orientation and the 
competitiveness of the sector  
- Reduce producer earnings fluctuations caused by 
market crises  
- Increase the consumption of  fruit and vegetables in 
the European Union  
- Sustain the efforts of farmers in protecting the 
environment  
- Simplify and reduce administrative costs  Ongoing discussions 
 
- Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable 
production  
- Improve market position of EU production 
- Better connect the EU production to the EU Market 
- Enhance market potential f EU products 
- Support better governance and simplification 
 
 
Comparison of current market intervention  instruments in the F&V and F&A sectors 
 Fruits and &Vegetables CMO Fisheries & Aquaculture CMO 
Export 
Refunds - Bridging of the price between the EU price 
level and the world market price level when the minimum price level, set by the European Union is higher than the world price for the same product   Not applicable 
Aids for 
processing  - Community production aid scheme for 
products intended for processing and which meet  minimum quality requirements 
- The aid is granted to producer Organisations 
which conclude contracts with processors approved by the MS  - Carry over operation (independent and not 
independent) for the processing of the product before it returns to the market  
- Direct aid to producers of tuna delivered to the 
processing industry if the market prices fall 
Storage aids  Not applicable - Carry over operation (independent and not 
independent) for the storage of the product before it returns to the market  
- Private storage aid (storage then return to the 
market) 
 
 
 75ANNEX 6: 
EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products 
The EU is the first market in the world for fisheries and aquaculture products in value (55 
billion euros representing 12 millions tons). Th e EU market increased by nearly two million 
tonnes between 1999 and 2007 where supply, trade and market structures and consumption 
preferences have dramatically changed41. The trends may be summarised as follows: 
¾ EU deficit in fisheries and aquaculture products  increases : 
o EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57% to 35% in the same period; 
o EU fisheries production steadily decreased  during ten years (-31% between 1996 and 
2008, which represents a loss of more than 2 million tonnes42); while EU 
aquaculture production has not grown to an appreciable extent. 
¾ Retail concentration increased 
o Supermarkets have a majority share of  fisheries and aquaculture product retail 
distribution that continues to grow in all major EU markets. Nowadays, this growth 
essentially comes from distribution of fresh products, given that large retail chain almost totally dominate frozen and canne d segments. Mass-market distribution of 
fresh fish is less significant in Southern European countries than in the Northern ones
43 where it highly developed.  
¾ Variability and complexity of first sale prices and price formation  
o First sale prices of fresh fish are ge nerally characterised by significant volatility. 
Several channels often co-exist to supply the various types of distribution, retail and 
HORECA, with specific pricing mechanisms and profit margins at each intermediary 
level.  
o Prices of imported products appear to be much more stable compare to EU 
production, notably since they are mainly  linked to major frozen commodities 
coming from aquaculture or major fisheries (i.e. salmon, shrimp).  
o Profitability at various stages of the fi sheries and aquaculture product chain is 
overall lower than that of other food supply chains.  
¾ Demand in terms of fish species has evolved over recent years:  
o There has been a reduction of EU production of certain main species of fish (cod, 
plaice, haddock, redfish, etc), at the same  time supplies of sea bass and sea bream 
farmed in Southern Europe have increased. 
                                                 
41 study on supply and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/ studies/study_evalua tion_market/index_en.htm   
42  It primarily affects species that are subject to quotas. For over a million tonnes it is linked to the reduction in 
Denmark's production, essentially for non-human uses. The demersal fish group has fallen more sharply (-
36%) than that of pelagic fish (-21%). 
43 Spain is the major market where supermarkets have a lower market share in selling fish products (55% in 2006, 
against 67% in Italy, 77% in Germany, 78% in France and 83% in the United Kingdom). 
 
 76o A strong increase in demand for salmon and tropical prawns is evident; at the same 
time there has been a decreased demand for some traditional products (e.g. herring, 
plaice). 
o Increase in demand for in new MS from a low base; 
o Changes in qualitative and economic expectations of consumers (more fish fillets 
and less whole fish, ready to eat and processed food, new consumers for new 
products without strong fishy taste and smell and at a low price); 
o Requirements in terms of volume and availability (by processors and retailers). 
¾ EU consumption of fisheries and aquacu lture products is far from being a 
homogenous market44 but it is  growing and evolving 
o The majority of markets have encountered  a growth in consumption in the last 
decade. This trend is particularly strong in traditional markets such as France where 
an increase of 5kg/year/inhabitant has occurre d in the last ten years. Likewise in 
several Central and Eastern European MS, th ere has been a noticeable increase in the 
level of FAP consumption. 
o EU markets are open to the arrival of new fish species, many of them substituting for 
traditional species which have become scarce. Examples of this are Alaska Pollock in the 80s, Nile perch from Lake Victoria  in the 90s, Pangasius from Vietnam since 
the mid 2000s. There is a tendency to wards homogenisation and harmonisation 
within the EU with the spread of di stribution networks linked to the major 
supermarkets. 
o Growth in EU consumption is expected at a level of about +0.5% per year between 
now and 2030. A strong growth in demand is expected for prepared products, shellfish and fillets. On this assumpti on, the EU demand is likely to grow to 
1,500,000 tonnes by 2030 supplied to a very la rge extent by imports. Dependence on 
white fish imports has already reached 90%, it is above 80% for salmon, and is 
generally high for all frozen and smoked products, whereas it represents only 30% 
for small pelagic species. 
¾ New consumption habits  
o Fresh fish continues to dominate in the ma jority of MS, particularly in Southern 
European countries (Spain, France and Italy)  where more than 50% of fisheries and 
aquaculture products are consumed in this form. There is an interesting increase in the consumption of fresh fish in Eastern European countries.  
o Innovations in terms of presentation and p ackaging (fish or seafood packaged in a 
protective atmosphere) help to improve mass-market availability. Deep-frozen products attract growing and consistent inte rest across almost all markets. Ready to 
eat meals, breaded fish and fillets are all growth drivers. The canned and pickled fish 
market segment seems to have reached ma turity, even showing signs of a slight 
decline in several MS. These staples have  a very high penetration rates and are 
guaranteed a minimum market share in th e long-term, in spite of the greater 
dynamism of other segments. The smoke d fish segment, led by salmon, is 
                                                
 
44 Spain, France and Italy alone make  up 62% of expenditures. fisherie s and aquaculture products account, on 
average, for 4% of food expenditure across EU27, but are above 5% in France, 8% in Spain and 10% in 
Portugal. On average, European consumers get 15% of  their protein intake from fisheries and aquaculture 
products. 
 
 77experiencing strong growth and still retains an image of luxury or regarded as a 
festive product whilst offering generally affordable price levels. Demand for dried, salted cod remains strong in the Iberian Peninsula but is declining in Italy. 
o The out-of-home catering sector (HORECA)  has encountered strong growth in 
recent years in the majority of MS due to lifestyle cha nges. The HORECA sector has 
become a significant purchaser and also an important player in terms of provision of 
information to consumers. Also, HORECA has developed new outlets such as sushi bars. 
¾ Increased consumers expectations 
The demand for fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU is influenced by a combination of 
economic, health and marketing factors. 
o Price and purchasing power are the most important elements related to fish 
consumption. Fisheries and aquaculture products are often considered as relatively expensive products and demand for them is elastic, according to price and purchasing power. 
o Health and nutritional values of fish ar e important criteria for consumers throughout 
the EU. The current trend for consuming h ealthy and natural products also benefits 
the fish sector and there is an increased in terest in the essential fatty acids or omega-
s for which fish is the best preformed source.  
o Quality in the broadest sense (organoleptic  features, freshness and safety guarantees) 
is also taken into consideration by Eur opean consumers when purchasing fisheries 
and aquaculture products.  
o Respect for environmental impact and pr oduct provenance is valued in certain 
countries, especially in Northern Europe. 
 
 
 78ANNEX 7: 
Overview of the EU market for sustainable fishing certified products 
 
Precise data on production and consumption of su stainable fishing certified products are often 
lacking. Most of the analysis publishe d by international organisations (FAO45, OECD46, EC47), 
national bodies (UK, FR48…) or NGOs ( Marine Stewardship Council - MSC, Friend of the Sea, 
Seafood Choices Alliances …) are based on qua litative work on operators and consumers’ 
perception and on broad quantitative data on certified volumes. Nevertheless, some 
quantitative economic analysis can be conducted on the basis of consultations held by Commission services and existing studies
49.  
 
Production and supply  
DG MARE estimates that some 10% of the world’ s fisheries capture for human consumption is 
certified or under assessment, which can be seen as  a dramatic market development in just ten 
years. Certified fisheries are so far primarily  located in US waters (Alaskan salmon and 
Pollock: more than 1.5 million tonnes), Norway (herring and mackerel: over 1 million tonnes) 
and New Zealand (Hoki: 250,000 tonnes) Other large fisheries are now involved in 
certification programmes, (Alaskan Pollock from Russian waters, pelagic fish from Danish or 
Peruvian waters) representing potentially millions of tonnes of certified fisheries products. 
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is the lead ing certification scheme at world level. It 
indicates that in 2009 four million tons of  capture fisheries for human consumption50 are MSC 
certified for a retail value of US$ 1.5 billion. So me three million tons of fish are undergoing 
full assessment against the MSC scheme for sustai nable fishing. The percentage of total global 
catch of all fish in the MSC programme is 7.5%51. The number of countries where MSC-
labelled products are available doubled be tween 2007 and 2009 (59) and the number of 
products (2,800) increased fourfold. Friend of the Sea (FoS), indicates that it has assessed more 
than 10 million tonnes of wild-catch and 500 thous and tonnes of farmed products. FoS certifies 
fishmeal. Eighty % of FoS assessed products (eight million tonnes) comes solely from 
Peruvian anchovies, entirely used for fishmeal . Other scheme operators do not published data 
                                                 
45 FAO – Globefish Research Programme “ Ecolabels and marine capture fisheries: Current practice and 
emerging issues ” Volume 91 - April 2008 : http://www. globefish.org/dynamisk.php4?id=4516 
46 http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_33901_42026282_1_1_1_37401,00.html 
47 Study on the supply and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products in the European Union (2009)  
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/fap_part2_fr.pdf 
48 Ofimer - Étude de faisabilité de la mise en place d’un éco label dans la filière des produits de la pêche maritime : 
http://www.ofimer.fr/Pages/ Ofimer/Publications.html 
49 FAO – Globefish Research Programme “ Ecolabels and marine capture fisheries: Current practice and 
emerging issues ” Volume 91 - April 2008 : http://www. globefish.org/dynamisk.php4?id=4516 
Ofimer - Étude de faisabilité de la mise en place d’un écola bel dans la filière des produits de la pêche maritime : 
http://www.ofimer.fr/Pages/ Ofimer/Publications.html 
OECD/FAO Round Table on Eco-Labelling and Certification in the Fish eries Sector: The Economics of 
Standards-Certification-Quality Signalling in Fisherie s (Julie A. Caswell -University of Massachusetts 
Amherst and Sven M. Anders - University of Alberta); The Consumer Perception (Nielsen)  
http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_33901_43351152_1_1_1_37401,00.html   
http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_33901_42026282_1_1_1_37401,00.html  
50 MSC does not yet certify fishmeal 
51 excluding fisheries undergoing confidential pre assessment: some 20 to 30 
 
 79on fisheries certified according to their standard s but the two previously mentioned are the 
most prominent on the EU market.  
Fish production from EU fisheries amounted  to 5.4 million tonnes in 2008. A rough estimate 
indicates that in 2009 some 6% to 8% of EU fisheries are certified52. The potential for 
development of certification of EU fisher ies is demonstrated by the growing number53 of EU 
fisheries currently under assessment. It is mainly important for pelagic fish whose European production remained constant (some two million t onnes) in the last 10 years when it decreased 
overall by 30% due to availability and quota reduc tion. Other fisheries and species are being 
assessed some on a large scale (saithe
54) and others on a more local basis and for higher value 
products (mussels, oysters, nephrops…). The range of  species from EU fisheries to be engaged 
in certification process is expanding55 which addresses one of the constraints often raised by 
retailers and restaurants engaged in selling certified products.  
Nevertheless the EU industry has to face some cons traints linked to the weak or fragile state of 
stocks in various EU fisheries (over 80% bei ng overfished) which, in the short, run would 
exclude them from this voluntary market base d tool. The EU sector may also suffer from 
limited experience in standards and certificati on. Additional constraints appear for fresh 
products, which is a large and high value segment of  European fisheries, since the obligation of 
certifying the chain of custody means that retails shops must also be certified. 
Consumption and demand 
Consumption of certified fisheries is concentrated  in North America, the EU and more recently 
in Japan56. There is very little data available on consumption per region or country. As 
certification of EU fisheries started only recen tly, so far the EU consumed certified fish 
products imported from some of the world largest stocks (Alaskan pollock, Alaskan salmon, herring, hoki...).  
In terms of demand for certified “sustainable fishing ” products it appears, according to a 
study conducted by the Commission
57 that a majority of consumers in the EU are willing to be 
informed on sustainability of the fisheries pr oducts they purchase. The main source of 
information in that context is reported to be labelling. Nevertheless there is a wide heterogeneity of interest in environmental cons iderations concerning fish products in the EU: 
                                                
 
52 Currently in the EU, some 10 fisheries are MSC certified. This concerned to a very large extent pelagic fish in 
DK and NL (herring 160,000 metric tones), and UK (mackerel 140,000 metric tones). saithe (DE - 10.000t and FR–5-10.000t). Other species are also concerned but for a more limited volume: sea bass, nephrops. Friends of the Sea certified Albacore Tuna in Ireland, mackerel and sardines in Portugal (no figures on volume available).
 
53 There are over 20 EU fisheries currently officially reported under assessment process by the MSC in UK, FR, 
NL, PT, DE…: Sardines in PT and FR (Bretagne – 15000 t), UK (Cornwall); Mackerel (IRL, DK-Feroe); 
Herring UK; Nephrops: UK ; Saithe: FR, UK; Haddock (Scotland); Shrimps, Mussels (SP – Galicia). Some (pre) assessments remain confidential. 
54 In the case of saithe for example, sustainable fishing labelling can be an opportunity for such products that do 
not exhaust, and sometimes by far, its annual TAC a nd suffer from a rather negative image, to improve its 
market penetration and stimulate investment in quality and marketing. 
55 First and main species certified in the EU were pelagi c fish, and more recently haddock, hake, saithe, sea bass, 
sole, nephrops, scallops 
56 MSC is extending its network of offices in the world (Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan, …) 
57 Image survey on the perception of fishery and aquaculture products, July 2008 - 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/survey_sector_image_summary_en.pdf   
 
 80relatively strong in Northern Europe, limited up to  recently in Southern Europe and weak in 
Central and Eastern European countries58. 
Still, it can be considered that the development of  “sustainable fishing” labels in the EU is 
demand driven . Commitments and communication by some of the main market makers 
(processors, retailers, catering) indicate that the steady increase observed in the last five years 
is very likely to continue59 meaning consolidating in most advanced markets and developing in 
other EU markets. Large processing and retail companies which are driving the process, are 
operating in most EU Member States. 
Based on this dynamic demand, it can be considered  that certified production of EU fisheries, 
representing some 3% of total consumption of  fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU60, 
is entirely absorbed by the EU market. Consider ing imports of certified products in the EU, a 
very broad estimate leads to a share of sustai nable fishing certified products between 5% and 
10% in the EU. Sustainable fishing labeled pr oducts are now sold in all 27 Member States. 
Nevertheless, the UK61 and Germany represent over 80% of total EU consumption for certified 
products. Market penetration of sustainable fish ing labels is also dynamic in the Netherlands, 
Sweden, France and Italy62.  
Potential and expected benefits are: price premiums, access to new markets, securing, 
consolidation or expansion of market share in existing markets, product differentiation, and 
longer-term advantages from improved sustainab ility and availability of resources, contributing 
to economic and social sustainability of the captured fish industry.  
Consumers in the EU do not consider sustainability  of fisheries to be their prime responsibility 
but one of their governments and the fishing industry63. They may also need more information. 
Nevertheless, labelling does influence purchasing decisions. It is reported that US certified 
Alaskan Pollock is sold on average 10% more th an the same product from Russian waters. This 
together with market opportunities probably pus hed part of the Russian fleet to start 
assessment in view of certification. Some European processors indicated that in order to secure 
access to certified resources they were ready to accept a price difference. This appears to be a 
strategic policy to lead the market niche of certified fish products. In addition, fishermen 
involved in sustainable fishing labelling sche mes report better predictability and less price 
volatility64. 
Costs, duration and access. Cost of certification can vary between 5,000 USD and over 
100,000 USD for more complex assessments with mu ltiple units of certifi cation. The use of a 
                                                 
58 Public and private promotion campa igns are taking place or have been announced (in the UK especially) and 
media coverage is increasing in all countries. The starti ng point is a limited (but growing) level of awareness 
of EU consumers on sustainable fishing and a very low knowledge of existing labels. 
59 Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer, Carrefour, Metro, Dutch retail association, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Edeka (DE), Dansk 
(DK), catering Sodexo, Compass and processors: Princes (UK) , Friedrich (DE), Birdseye Iglo, Youngs UK, Findus …are all committed to expand their range of certified products and in many cases set ambitious 
targets and timeframes.  Similar trends are observed in the USA and Cana da: Wallmart announced that 100% certified fresh and 
frozen seafood by 2011 
60 EU consumption of fisheries and aquaculture pr oducts: 12 million t for a value of € 55 billion (2008).  
61 Sales in the UK increased from US$ 30 million to US$ 150 million between 2006 and 2008  
62 The number of referenced MSC labelled products tripled in France between 2008 and 2009 
63 Nielsen survey March 2009:  Th e consumer’s perspective  http ://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/38/42691624.pdf 
64 Conclusions of the OECD Round Ta ble on Eco-labelling and Certifica tion in the fisheries sector - 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/43356890.pdf 
 
 81logo varies from fees plus percentage of sales65 to standard yearly fee66. Pre-assessment may 
last from between one to nine months with a full evaluation from five to 24 months. On the 
production side (catch) companies operating in the EU are mainly SMEs67 which have so far 
little experience of certification. Public authoritie s (EU, national, regional) are supportive to 
this development and co finance assessment process68. Development of certification takes 
place in a difficult economic context in the last  2-3 years (fuel crisis, access to credit, 
decreasing resources…). Profitability is, on average,  lower than in the agriculture sector and 
investment capacity is down.  
Non financial impact: Further development of sustainable fishing certification should lead to 
increased investments in traceability systems, an increase in the variety of available tools and 
technology and reduction costs. This is expected to have very substantial spill-over effects in 
the overall fish sector69. 
Certification contributes to improve credibility and the image of the sector that has been 
strongly affected in recent years by suspicion of  non compliance and difficulty to get value and 
communicate on good practices. Market di fferentiation, positive communication and 
information to the public are the first benefits for European fisheries. Certification and labelling of sustainable fishing represent a wa y to secure markets and access new markets in 
the EU particularly in Northern Europe. 
                                                
 
65 MSC: 250- 2000 USD + 0.5% of sales  
66 Friend of the Sea: Standard Yearly fee 3.000 Euros per product with same origin (5.000 Euros on first year - 
including Audit Costs). 
67 In the EU among the few certified fisheries, there are several small scale fisheries (herring from the River 
Thames, sardines à la bolinche de Bretagne…)  
68 The European Fisheries Fund, as well as national administrations (UK, DK, SW, NL, DE, FR..) support 
certification of European fisherie s. The Dutch government allocated €1 million to support certification.  
DEFRA-UK is also co-financing MSC "fish and kids programme": http://www.fishandkids.org 
69 Traceability in the fish sector has been lagging behind co mpared to other food industry sector. Together with 
improved technology (electronic auctions, sales notes, electronic log books…), the logistics of the sector and the changing regulatory framework (Regulation against Illegal Unregulated Unreported fishing, new control 
Regulation …) traceability is widespr ead very quickly. Labels on sustai nable fishing will both benefit from 
this development and stimulate it while developing.
 
 
 82 
ANNEX 8: 
European markets Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products 
Summary of the ongoing Preparatory Action 
Since early 2010, the European Commission is implementing a preparatory action for a 
European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products. This important project is 
carried out as a result of a decision made by the European Parliament to allocate 4 M€ to the 
European Commission following a communication of the Commission on the consequences of 
the economic crisis for the EU fishing industry, in July 200870. 
The aim of the European Market Observator y is to improve market intelligence of all 
stakeholders and decision makers such as the Commission, Council, Parliament and MS. The 
Market Observatory will be of major importance for the fisheries and aquaculture sector and, 
as such, constitute one of the cornerstones of th e reformed Market Policy. It will be developed 
in relation to the ongoing food price monitoring exercise which is being carried out by the 
Commission under the leadership of DG AGRI.  
More specifically, the objective of the Europ ean Markets Observatory service will be to 
provide harmonised economic information allowi ng stakeholders, administrations and regional 
fisheries organisations to have a global overview of European markets and to compare different 
local or regional market situations within the European Union.  
To reach this objective, the European Market Observatory will collect and harmonise market 
data all along the supply chain of fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe. Moreover, it will produce relevant charts and tables, as well as ad hoc market analyses and ensure an 
adequate dissemination of this information to all users concerned.  
The steady information on prices and products wh ich will be made available both at EU and 
Member State levels will help stakeholders and decision makers to develop adequate marketing 
strategies and public policy.  
A couple of concrete examples are provided belo w to illustrate the services to be provided by 
this market analysis tool.  
A first example
 refers to the market crisis which the fisheries sector was faced with at the 
beginning of 2009, in particular due to the im portant landings of cod and haddock all over 
Europe. For the future, it will be possible to have  recourse to the European Market Observatory 
to swiftly retrieve weekly in formation on prices for cod, haddock and other competitive species 
in the main landing ports, not only in the EU but also in Iceland and Norway. To get an 
overview of the situation, price information on these same species may also be found at 
wholesale and retail levels. This will allow detecting any abnormal evolution in price formation and consequently to be able to rapidl y and effectively tackle the situation and launch 
appropriate policy or marketing initiatives in a timely manner.  
                                                
 
70 COM(2008) 453 final / Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council 
on promoting the adaptation of the European Union fishing fleets to the economic consequences of high fuel prices / Brussels, 8.7.2008 
 
 83A second example  refers to the impact of the impressive development of Pangasius production 
in Vietnam on the European fisheries and aquacultu re sector. This issue is frequently raised by 
private operators, Member State administrations  or the European Parliament. Adequate and 
reliable sources of information are needed to an alyse it. The European Market Observatory will 
collect and analyse market data at different levels  of the supply chain, i.e. first sale, whole sale, 
extra EU and intra EU trade, processing and retail. It will be possible to make swift 
assessments based on reliable and precise data of the evolution of the market-share of 
Pangasius on the different EU markets. It w ill be possible to identify the species and the 
market segments on which Pangasius has the biggest impact and to regularly monitor the import and retail price of Pangasius in view of taking appropriate measures. 
State of Play 
In preparation of this project, DG MARE c onducted, in early 2009, a preliminary consultation 
of MS and stakeholders which confirmed a str ong interest in a European Market Observatory. 
They provide useful indications of the main expectations. 
Mid 2009, DG MARE launched an open call for tender
71 in view of finding a suitable expertise 
to pave the way for the establishment of a tu rn-key European Market Observatory. Following 
established procurement rules, a team of cons ulting companies led by COGEA was selected to 
carry out the preparatory action72. The contract was signed at the end of January 2010, 
subsequent to which a kick-off meeting was or ganised to establish contact and launch the 
process. A Steering-Group composed of representatives of DG MARE, DG AGRI, DG 
TRADE, DG ESTAT and JRC-Ispra will follow the work all along the duration of the project. 
The way forward 
In order to carry out this preparatory action to  establish a European Market Observatory, three 
successive steps are planned: 
• In phase 1 , which will last for around 6 months, the contractor will be requested to 
examine the availability of fisheries and aquaculture data all along the supply chain, 
identify gaps and suggest solutions where a ppropriate. Final results of this state of 
play phase will be available before the end of 2010. 
• In phase 2 , starting at the end of 2010 and endi ng at the end of 2011, the contractor 
will design the structure and functioning of the European Market Observatory. 
• In phase 3 , as a final step, the contractor will test the model for the aforementioned 
purposes and ensure a hand-over to the European Commission for the third quarter of 2012. 
On the basis of the outcomes and evaluations  of this preparatory action the European 
Commission will analyse the relevance of setting a permanent European Market Observatory 
for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products which w ould contribute to the objective of the reform 
of the Market Policy to provide tools for all st akeholders to improve market intelligence in 
fisheries and aquaculture products. 
                                                
 
71 Open call for tenders n°MARE/2009/06 published in the Official Journal of the European Union S/146 of 
01/08/2009 (ref. 2009/S 146-213226). See annex 1 of the present note. 
72 Contract award notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union S/31 of 13/02/2010 (ref. 2010/S 
31-043487).