Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (94/C 397/09)

On 20 October 1994, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Michael Strauss as Rapporteur-General for its Opinion.

At its 320th Plenary Session (meeting of 23 November 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a large majority, with twelve dissenting votes and ten abstentions.

1. General

1.1. The Committee finds that the proposals setting out the arrangements for monitoring compliance with the proposed new rules of access to Western Waters are too complex, too bureaucratic and, as they stand, incapable of enforcement.

1.2. The Commission should therefore be asked to reconsider them and table arrangements which can be applied Union-wide without being unnecessarily burdensome on the industry.

1.3. In its Opinion in 1993 (), the Committee emphasized that the success of the Common Fisheries Policy depends on its acceptance by the industry. This acceptance is contingent on fishermen believing that irrespective of nationality they are dealt with uniformly by the authorities. It is their belief that at present the rules necessary to conserve stock are not implemented evenly across the Union. Fishery control requires greater direct EU involvement. This is not reflected in the proposals.

1.4. Adequate control requires that the EU and national inspection services have sufficient resources at their disposal. This is not at present the case.

1.5. Satellite surveillance might prove to be the most effective means of control as opposed to the more complex means envisaged by the Commission. The cost of the installation as previously recommended should be borne by the authorities.

2. Specific comments

2.1.

Article 3a

Masters of vessels should not have to report continually, but only when they enter and depart from the fishery. Catches can be monitored when landed.

2.2.

Article 19b

The consequences of SVDs are highly prejudicial to administration and practical fishing. If the concept of the Standard Vessel Day is incorporated in the basic regulation, then regard should be had to the time of entry and departure from a fishing zone. This should apply to both active and passive gear.

2.3.

Article 19c.2

This Article should be deleted. Vessels exempted from the obligation to keep a log book account for only a small proportion of the total catch. The inspection services' work should not be fragmented by having to inspect vessels under 10 metres. In any case coastal vessels can be checked on a daily basis.

2.4.

Article 19d.1

This Article should be deleted. It is impractical for fishermen to notify the authorities 15 days in advance of the date on which their number of days in a zone for each fishery is expected to be used up. Fishing is determined by variable factors such as the weather and availability of fish. Notifications would be subject to constant amendments which would add to the bureaucratic burden.

2.5.

Article 19e

It should be the task of the coastal state to ensure that vessels observe regulations pertaining to specific fisheries. To ensure equality of treatment the inspection services of coastal states could be accompanied by inspectors from the Union and Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 November 1994.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 108, 19. 4. 1993, p. 36.