30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/37 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 3796/81 on the common organization of the market in fishery products and amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the common customs tariff (*) 
(87/C 319/13) 
On 20 May 1987 the Council decided to exercise its option to consult the Economic and 
Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Hancock as rapporteur-general 
with the task of preparing its work on the subject. 
At its 248th plenary session on 23 and 24 September 1987 (meeting of 23 September) the 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee notes the Commission's claim 
that, as a result of these amending regulations, together 
with those already in force, all varieties of fish, whether 
of Community or of regional importance, will now be 
covered by a price support mechanism. 
1.1.1. It is further noted that the price mechanisms 
differ from those previously employed in that aid for 
species covered by Annex VI, with the exception of 
tuna, will be based on withdrawal prices set by producer 
organizations themselves. 
1.2. The Committee believes that there is a need for 
balance in all Regulations so that a healthy fishing fleet 
and a healthy processing industry can exist side by side 
within the Community on a long-term basis. Whilst 
some of these proposals are said to be helpful, particu­
larly to some of the smaller producer organizations, 
scepticism must be expressed as to whether this package 
of measures is worth the effort involved and will pro­
vide more than the most marginal assistance. Some 
parts indeed are positively counter-productive. 
1.2.1. The reasons for this attitude having been 
adopted will be clarified under the detailed comments 
on each section of the Regulations. 
1.3. It is clear that the fishing industry has always 
taken an attitude of financial responsibility keeping 
well within the amount budgeted for support measures. 
The industry has never suffered from the endemic sur­
pluses present in some areas of agriculture. Withdrawal, 
where necessary, is normally for a very short period, 
consequent on temporary surpluses. It has to be appreci­
ated that, whilst difficult in farming to plan for harvests 
of a certain size or quantity, this is impossible in the 
case of fishing. 
(!) OJ No C 145, 3. 6. 1987, p. 4. In view of this responsible outlook, and the need for 
further careful development of the Community fishing 
industry, it must not now suffer through cuts in the 
budget which could endanger the carrying out of sup­
port programmes. Such price support mechanisms pro­
grammes are and will continue to be necessary in order 
to assist in stabilizing the market for the benefit of the 
industry and consumers alike. 
1.4. Whilst welcoming the recognition given to the 
problems of southern producers of demersal species, 
limited though it may be, the Committee hopes that 
the Commission does not think that by this means they 
can claim to have discharged all their obligations to 
those producers. 
1.5. It is important that the situation regarding 
species in Annex VI be reviewed regularly in that the 
aim is to transfer species to Annex I when conditions 
throughout the Community have become more uni­
form. It is suggested that this review take place at 
3-yearly intervals, the base date being that date on 
which these amending Regulations come into force. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1.1. Article 1.2. 
In regard to Article 1(2) and the proposal for a new 
Article 14 (b), Article 14 (b) 1 (a) will result in severe 
logistical problems for some producer organizations 
particularly those newly established when they come to 
fix price levels where little or no relevant data regarding 
prices has been collected over the past three years. 
Member States who will be responsible for the super­
vision of the system will therefore have to show a 
measure of flexibility in the application of the rules 
during the first three years of operation. 
2.1.2., Whilst understanding the logic of the Com­
mission proposal that firstly, prices for an area will be 
based on those in a representative port to be designated 
by the Member State concerned, and secondly, that 
producer organizations can choose which species they 
No C 319/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
include or exclude in the regime, this could nevertheless, 
lead to market distortions, particularly where adjacent 
regions lie either side of a frontier. 
2.1.3. The Committee, while recognizing the reasons 
as regards a system whereby producer organizations 
set price levels for which, products have access to 
Community funds, thinks that this is setting an undesir­
able precedent. This may be necessary because of the 
wide divergence in prices for the same species between 
one area and another. Nevertheless, it is felt that only 
under the most exceptional circumstances should this 
system continue after the completion of the first three-
year period of operation. After that the provisions 
under Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81, Title 3, together 
with the relevant implementing Regulations, should 
apply. 
2.2. In view of the fact that existing grading for 
Annex I species is not proving entirely satisfactory in 
practice, it would seem sensible to introduce a simplified 
system of grading for Annex VI species. If this is not 
done the cost of grading, where perhaps only 4% of 
the total catch will attract price support, may well 
outweigh the benefits for many producer organizations. 
2.2.1. There is even a case for questioning whether 
there is a need for a Community system of size grading 
for Annex VI species. In the first three-year period at 
least Member States could surely be left to set standards, 
taking into account local practice and tradition, 
together with any existing national regulations. 
2.2.2. In any case, larger ports, where inspectors 
are constantly on hand, should not be placed at a 
disadvantage compared with smaller, outlying ports 
where inspection will, in practice, tend to be less rig­
orous. 
2.2.3. As far as quality standards are concerned, the 
implementing Regulations must be such as to ensure 
that all fish qualifying for support is fit for human 
consumption. 
2.3. The Committee approves of the concept of co-
responsibility as set out in 14 (b) 1 (c) as this will 
lead to greater responsibility by producer organizations 
when setting withdrawal prices. On the other hand the 
Regulations are not aimed at dealing with the market 
situation where over-production is not normal. Also 
many of the producer organizations concerned will 
consist of small fishermen with low incomes who will 
find difficulty in affording the levies to finance indem­
nities of 25 or 50 %. It is therefore recommended that 
less onerous levels be set, perhaps in accordance with 
those applicable to Annex I species. 2.4. As the system of carry-over premium has not 
worked for varieties such as cod and nephrops norve-
gicus, there must be strong reservations about the wis­
dom of applying this procedure to Annex VI species. 
Processing and storage is only likely to come into effect 
when processing capacity is likely to be full and the 
market is not prepared to buy even at very low prices. 
To put products into storage is only likely to postpone 
the evil day when it has to be put back on the market 
and sold at virtually any price, possibly causing major 
market distortion. 
2.5. The limitation of flat-rate aid to quantities not 
in excess of 10 % of the annual quantity sold is accept­
able although there have been strong representations 
made by certain sections of the trade for a figure of up 
to 20%. A solution might be for the application of a 
system of modulation but the application of such a 
system should be the sole responsibility of the Com­
mission. 
2.6. The Committee finds it difficult to understand 
why in 14 (b) 4 (b) the rules in regard to aid for 
costs of processing and storage have been altered. The 
existing system is based on the actual costs sustained. 
It is surely unnecessary to move to another formula. 
2.7. The Committee welcomes the new Article 16 
but believes that the maximum stocking period should 
be increased from two to three months and aid should 
also be granted to products fished and then frozen on 
shore in the case of the inshore fishing fleet. 
2.8. In regard to the final paragraph of Article 16 (2), 
the Committee believes that the word 'Community' 
should be deleted. 
2.9. It is noted that there will be a different arrange­
ment for private storage aid in that it will now be 
routed through producer organizations rather than to 
individual vessels as previously. The Committee wel­
comes this change, but would draw the attention of the 
Commission and the Council to the existing situation 
whereby certain of the regions most affected do not yet 
have producer organizations within the criteria laid 
down by Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 and the 
implementing Regulations. It asks that due regard be 
given to this potentially serious situation for some of 
the poorer areas of the Community. 
2.10.1. The Committee cannot agree with the Com­
mission proposals under either Article 17 or 17 (a). In 
its view the proposals do not solve either of the prob­
lems facing the Community, firstly the maintaining of 
a viable economic tuna fishing industry or, secondly, 
30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/39 
providing the tuna processing and principally canning 
industry with raw material at a price which will enable 
it to compete with canned products from countries 
outside the Community. 
The Committee accepts that the solution is not an easy 
one in that to set a reference price for Chapter 16 
products would jeopardize on-going negotiations 
within GATT. The other alternative to provide a fuel 
subsidy for tuna fishing vessels operating outside Com­
munity is clearly a practice which the Commission 
does not favour. In any case, the latter solution would 
discriminate against those fishing for Bonito Tuna in 
the Bay of Biscay. 
2.10.2. Another objectionable feature of the Com­
mission proposals is that they appear to be a way of 
legalizing the ad hoc rules that they produced in 1986 
which are now being challenged in the European Court 
of Justice. We can only deplore any attempt to use 
retrospective legislation. 
2.10.3. This is not a matter that can be left in abey­
ance. If no action is taken there is likely to be a substan­
tial reduction in the Community tuna fleet within four 
or five years with serious economic and social conse­
quences. It would also be undesirable for the Com­
munity canning industry to be dependent on outside 
sources of supply which may not continue to be abun­
dant. 
The best solution would seem to be to continue with 
the existing scheme. It is recognized that there is serious 
concern that this scheme does lead to the Community 
budget being faced with an open-ended financial com­
mitment. It is therefore up to the Commission to exam­
ine the matter and to see how this particular problem 
can be resolved without causing material damage to the 
Community fishing fleet. 
2.11.1. With reference to Annex VI, the inclusion of 
a number of species is said to have been welcomed 
by those fishing organizations directly concerned. The 
Committee has obtained no direct evidence that this is 
the case, or that any of the species listed, excluding 
tuna, meet the Commission criteria of facing identifi­
able market difficulties. Nevertheless the Committee is 
reluctant to reject outright any proposal that might be 
beneficial to a sector of the industry which currently 
faces problems and plays an important role within 
the social and economic fabric of many of the less 
advantaged regions. They are however concerned that, 
in practice, the cost of meeting the Regulations will 
outweigh the benefits and in consequence, after a 
period, very few producer organizations will actively 
participate. 2.11.2. Additionally we have to question the 
inclusion of some species: 
— blue whiting in view of the biological forecasts and 
economic situation, 
— the two tuna species in the light of our comments 
on the proposals regarding tuna, 
— lemon sole in that this is a well-established market 
and should not be in need of Community financial 
assistance, 
— pout and horse mackerel which have existing Com­
munity markets and should be logically in Annex I. 
2.11.3. On the other hand sprats caught not for 
conversion into fishmeal as most frequently occurs, but 
smoked for human consumption, are not covered by 
any Regulation and it might be logical to include them 
within Annex VI. 
2.12. It is noted that no reference within these 
amending Regulations is made to the serious problems 
facing the herring industry. The Committee would call 
on the Commission to give urgent consideration to 
methods by which trading with third countries, particu­
larly those with centralized economies, may be regu­
lated so that it does not lead to uneconomic price levels 
within the Community. 
2.13. It is noted with surprise that one urgent meas­
ure has not been referred to at all in any part of these 
Regulations and that is the extension of the sample 
grading system for herring and mackerel to encompass 
sardines and pilchards, and we would again ask the 
Commission to give their urgent consideration to this 
matter and also to horse mackerel on two grounds. 
Firstly, that it is largely self-grading and secondly, that 
sample grading is already the practice in the two newest 
Member States. It could be that this would need to be 
coupled with a size limitation. 
2.14. Annex VII will need to be adapted to the new 
customs nomenclature as soon as this is technically 
feasible but this should not prejudice any rights allowed 
to Spain and Portugal under their respective Treaties 
of Accession. 
2.15. With reference to Article 2, as the Committee 
has advocated the retention of the compensatory allow­
ance and the finding of an alternative budgetary sol­
ution, it cannot accept the repeal of Regulation (EEC) 
No 1196/76. 
No C 319/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
2.16. Article 3 is totally unrealistic in terms of the 
timescale for the entering into force because of the 
number of implementing Regulations that have to be 
agreed and published and the industry given reasonable 
time to adapt. In any event, the newness of both these 
Regulations and a number of the producer organiz­
ations necessitates the earliest possible tabling of the 
necessary implementing Regulations. There is even a case for postponing for three years the 
introduction of those measures not rejected in this 
Opinion. This would enable precise calculations of 
catch figures and market price movements to be made. 
It might even perhaps allow for the use of rather more 
generous criteria for the granting of aid. 
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT