23. 8.76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/21 
2.9. Article  8 (4) (b) 
2.9.0  In  the  light  of the  amendment  proposed  to 
Article  2, the  Committee  urges  that  the  proposal 
should  read: 
'(b) Those  areas  under  hops  which  are  in their 
first year  of production  may  be declared 
ineligible  for aid.' 
2.10.  Article  10 
2.10.0.  The  Committee  considers  that  the 
proposed  amendment  to Article  10  of the  basic 
Regulation  should  not  be  allowed  to  lead  to alteration  'of Article  17 (6),  which  lays  down  that  the 
aids scheme  for  the  formation  of  producers' 
organizations  shall  operate  for  10 years  from  the 
date of entry  into  force  of the Regulation. 
As the basic  Regulation  entered  into  force  on 26 July 
1971,  the scheme  should  operate  until  26 July  1981. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on a programme  for restructuring  the 
non-industrial  inshore  fishing  industry 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 6 of 10 January  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 9 December  1975,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  47 and  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Articles  47 and  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of  the  European  Communities  on 
9 December  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 16  December  1975  instructing  the  Section  for 
Agriculture  to prepare  the  Committee's  work  on the 
matter, Regulation  concerning  the  implementation  of  a 
common  structural  policy  for  the  fisheries  sector  (1), 
the opinion  of 24 February  1972  on the  proposal  for 
a Regulation  on financing  by the  EAGGF  (Guidance 
Section)  of reconversion  schemes  in the  cod  fishing 
sector  (2) and  the  opinion  of 27 June  1974  on the 
proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  laying  down 
conditions  for  granting  national  aid  under  the 
common  structural  policy  for  sea  fishing  (3), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Piga, 
Having  regard  to previous  Committee  work  on the 
matter,  and  more  specifically  the  opinion  of  26 
March  1969  on  the  proposal  for  a Council (!) OJ No C 76, 17. 6. 1969. 
(2) OJ No C 61, 10. 6. 1972. 
(3) OJ No C 116,  30, 9. 1974. 
No C 197/22 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 6 May  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session,  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 26 
May  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  no votes  aigainst  and  3 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the  Commission's 
proposal,  subject  to the  comments  set  out  below. 
The proposal  pursues  objectives  set out  in Article  10 
of Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2141/70  of 20 
October  1970  laying  down  a common  structural 
policy  for  the  fishing  industry  (*). 
1. General  comments 
1.1.0.  The  Committee  points  out  that  it is only 
now,  after  a lapse  of more  than  five  years,  that  the 
Commission  is carrying  out  the  task  set  by  the 
Council,  and  only  partially  at that.  It was  after  all in 
October  1970  that  the  Council,  when  it adopted 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2141/70,  said  that  the 
Commission  should  submit,  without  delay,  proposals 
for structural  reform  of:  (i)  small-scale  inshore 
fishing,  and  (ii) deep-sea  fishing. 
1.2.0.  The  Committee  is aware  of the  considerable 
difficulties  arising  from  the  divergent  positions  of the 
Member  States,  but  considers  that  the  interests  at 
stake  are  being  damaged  by the  delay  with  which  the 
proposal  has  been  submitted,  and  its incompleteness. 
The Committee,  therefore,  asks  the  Commission  to 
draw  up proposals  on deep-sea  fishing  as soon  as 
possible.  As for  the Council,  it is requested  to take  a 
decision  on the  set of Commission  proposals  at the 
earliest  possible  opportunity. 
1.2.1.  In  fact,  the  need  for  structural  reform  and 
modernization  of the  fisheries  sector  applies  to all 
types  of fishing.  It is all the  more  pressing  becausc 
the UN  Conference  on the  Law  of the  Sea  is moving 
towards  a widening  to  200  miles  of  exclusive 
national  fishing  zones. 
1.2.2.  This  state  of affairs  and  these  prospects  call 
for specific  Community  action  to supplement  and 
coordinate  the  support  given  by Member  States  to 
(') OJ No L 236,  27. 10. 1970. the fisheries  sector.  The  aim  here  is the  earliest 
possible  introduction  of a common  fisheries  policy. 
1.2.3.  Problems  are  particularly  acute  in certain 
Community  regions  whose  fishermen  operate,  for 
instance,  in the  North  Sea  off  Norway  and  Iceland, 
in the  Adriatic  off  Yugoslavia  and  Albania,  and  in 
the Mediterranean  off Libya,  Tunisia  and  Algeria. 
In addition,  difficulties  are  forecast  for  the 
Community  deep-sea  fleet  which  habitually  fishes  off 
North  America  and  West  Africa. 
1.3.0.  In  the  external  relations  sphere  (negotiations 
with  non-member  countries,  international  con-
ferences,  etc.),  fishing  issues  should  be  dealt  with 
as part  of the  overall  context  of international  trade 
and cooperation,  and  there  should  be a transferral  — 
phased  if need  be — of responsibilities  from  the 
Member  States  to the Community. 
1.4.0.  On  26 March  1969,  in its opinion  on the 
proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  laying  down  a 
common  structural  policy  for  the  fishing  industry, 
the Committee  stressed  that  a common  structural 
policy  was  needed  in order  to achieve  the  general 
economic  and  social  objectives  of  the  common 
fisheries  policy.  In addition,  the  Committee  pointed 
out that  it was  not  enough  to coordinate  Member 
State  structural  policies;  it was  necessary  to have  a 
common  structural  policy  which  embraced  all 
aspects  and  all objectives. 
1.4.1.  Further,  in its opinion  of 27 June  1974  on 
the proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  laying  down 
conditions  for  granting  national  aid  under  the 
common  structural  policy  for  sea  fishing,  the 
Committee  said  that  most  national  aids  to the  fishing 
industry  should  quickly  be changed  into  Community 
aids. 
1.5.0.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Committee  is aware 
that structural  modernization  is  particularly 
necessary  in the  case  of family  small-scale  and 
cooperative  inshore  fishing  enterprises.  The 
Committee  therefore  accepts  the  need  for  ad hoc 
arrangements  for  this  sector. 
1.5.1.  Some  100  000  full-time  fishermen  and 
30 000  seasonal  fishermen  are  engaged  in inshore 
fishing.  Ancillary  activities  (manufacturing  of nets, 
shipyards,  processing  industry,  etc.)  employ  more 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/23 
than  600  000.  Working  conditions  in inshore  fishing 
are particularly  arduous.  As much  as 15 hours  are 
put in at a stretch  each  day,  as much  as five  to six 
days  running  are  spent  on board  and  there  is no 
entitlement  to paid  leave.  Incomes  are  extremely 
variable  and  according  to Commission  estimates  they 
dropped  30 to 40 % between  1973  and  1974,  above 
all because  the  cost  of equipment  (shipbuilding, 
diesel  oil,  nylon,  etc.)  has  increased  more  than  the 
value  of the  catch.  The  Committee  considers  that 
this income  drop  is also  due  to the fact  that  the price 
support  machinery  provided  in Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2142/70  has  been  of little  help  to inshore  fishermen. 
1.5.2.  As  things  stand,  it is fair  to say  that  small 
inshore  fishermen  cannot  finance  capital  expenditure 
out of their  financial  reserves. 
1.5.3.  Referring  to the  table  appended  to the 
Commission's  proposal,  the  Committee  observes 
that small-scale  inshore  fishing  is of particular 
importance  in many  Member  States.  The  Committee 
points  out  that  it is precisely  in those  States  that 
Community  action  is  vital  for  the  structural 
modernization  of the fishing  industry. 
1.5.4.  The  Committee  points  out  that  the  term 
'non-industrial  inshore  fishing  industry',  which  the 
Commission  has  used  because  of the precedent  set by 
the Council,  may  give  rise  to difficulties  in some 
Member  States  where  this  classification  does  not 
exist. 
This  term  should,  therefore,  be replaced  by a set of 
objective  criteria  which  better  delimit  the  scope  of 
the proposed  Regulation. 
1.6.0.  The  Committee  endorses  the  Commission's 
decision  to propose  a Regulation  rather  than  a 
Directive.  Regulations  are  directly  applicable  in all 
the Member  States;  they  ensure  more  effective  action 
and greater  uniformity. 
Furthermore,  use  of a Regulation  will  mean  that 
EAGGF  aid  to  projects  will  go  directly  to 
beneficiaries  Finally,  a Regulation  is  a legal 
instrument  which  is more  consistent  with  the  aim  of 
setting  up a common  structural  policy  for this  sector. 
1.6.1.  But  the  proposed  Regulation  must  make 
allowance  for  the  fact  that  socio-economic 
conditions  differ  from  one  region  to the  next  in the 
Community.  It must  be possible  to apply  it without 
difficulty  to the various  situations. 
1.7.0.  By  and  large,  the  Committee  approves  the 
proviso  that  individual  projects  will  not  be eligible 
for Community  aid unless  they  are part  of a regional 
scheme  or programme. This  proviso  is  calculated  to  improve  the 
compatibility  of  'individual  projects'  with  the 
general  economic  and  social  requirements  of 
consumers  and  all persons  working  in the  fishing 
industry  (boat  owners,  share  fishermen  and  wage-
earners).  At the same  time,  the environment  and  fish 
stocks  will  be protected. 
Moreover,  as long  ago  as 1969,  in the  opinion  cited 
above,  the Committee  urged  coordination  of fisheries 
plans  at Community  level. 
1.7.1.  The  abovementioned  proviso  must  not, 
however,  complicate  or  delay  the  grant  of 
Community  aids. 
1.8.0.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  report  on 
fisheries  structures  (which  the  Commission  has  to 
present  each  year  to the  Council  under  Article  7 of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2141/70)  should  be  a key 
instrument  of structural  policy,  and  be  used  for 
evaluating  multi-annual  regional  programmes  and 
development  schemes. 
1.8.1.  The  Committee  therefore  reiterates  the 
request  made  in its 1969  opinion  that  it be consulted 
on the  abovementioned  report.  The  Committee 
deplores  the  fact  that  the  Commission  has  not  yet 
prepared  annual  reports  for  the  years  from  1970  to 
1975.  This  is primarily  due  to the  fact  that  some 
Member  States  have  not  furnished  all the  necessary 
data. 
1.9.0.  The  structural  modernization  of  inshore 
fishing  should  cover  not  only  production  facilities 
(vessels,  nets,  harbours,  etc.),  but  also  facilities  for 
the preservation  and  distribution  of catches. 
The Committee  considers  that  the  proposed 
Regulation  should  be  more  explicit  in  this 
connection,  so as to bring  out  the  need  for  aids  for 
processing,  distribution  and  other  activities  which 
take place  after  the catch  is landed. 
Above  all,  there  must  be a general  drive  to improve 
distribution  so as: (i) to give  fishermen  more  stable 
and qualitatively  better  outlets  for  their  products, 
and (ii),  in  particular,  to  further  consumers' 
interests. 
1.9.1.  In  addition,  infrastructure  (particularly  port 
facilities)  needs  to be improved  and  adequate  public 
aid should  be provided  for this  purpose. 
No C 197/24 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
1.10.0.  Inshore  fishing  enterprises  are  particularly 
common  in regions  appearing  on the  Community  list 
of handicapped  regions. 
The Committee  therefore  approves  the 
Commission's  statement  that  attitude  towards  aids 
granted  under  the  proposed  Regulation  should  be 
coordinated  with  aids  from  the  Regional 
Development  Fund.  The  Committee  considers  that 
this coordination  should  be as close  as possible,  and 
that it should  influence  the  determination  of 
priorities  when  EAGGF  aid is granted  to the  inshore 
fishing  industry. 
1.11.0.  EAGGF  expenditure  in 1977/81  under  the 
proposed  Regulation  is put  at 118  million  units  of 
account. 
This  sum  would  appear  to be inadequate  in the light 
of the  economic  and  social  importance  of the  sector, 
particularly  when  one  thinks  that  this  expenditure 
will encourage  structural  investment,  i.e.,  investment 
having  lasting  effects. 
The Committee  therefore  requests  the  Commission 
to review  its  financial  forecasts  and  aim  at 
appropriations  that  are  more  consonant  with  the 
needs  of the sector. 
1.12.0.  According  to the  Commission's  proposal, 
EAGGF  aid  is to be conditional  on the  fixing  of 
production  targets.  The  Committee  welcomes  this;  it 
is in character  with  the  Committee's  repeated 
urgings  with  respect  to the  common  agricultural 
policy.  In fact,  experience  with  the  CAP  has  shown 
that production  targets  are  a logical  and  essential 
adjunct  of market-support  activities. 
1.12.1.  But  production  targets  must  be coupled 
with  an appropriate  policy  on imports  from  non-
member  countries  and  on the  conservation  of fish 
stocks.  Among  other  things,  this  policy  should  entail 
the creation  of  protected  breeding  areas  and 
measures  to protect  the  marine  environment  from 
the pollution  which  in some  areas  is putting  all 
forms  of marine  life  at risk. 
In this  connection,  the  Committee  refers  to its 
opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on 
the dumping  of waste  at sea. 
1.13.0.  The  Committee  notes  the  Commission's 
statement  that  the present  proposal  covers  all marine 
species  which  are farmed  or caught  by non-industrial 
fishermen. 2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  I 
It has  been  pointed  out  in the  'general  comments' 
that the  term  'non-industrial  inshore  fishing 
industry'  may  give  rise  to interpretation  difficulties 
in some  Member  States. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  the  first  line 
of Article  1 should  be amended  to read: 
'In order  to create  in the  inshore  fishing  industry 
as defined  in Article  8 (1)  and  (2)  hereinafter, 
conditions  . . 
The Committee  proposes  that  the  title  of  the 
Regulation  and  every  other  Article  using  the  term 
'non-industrial  inshore  fishing  industry'  should  be 
amended  accordingly. 
2.2. Article  .3 
2.2.0.  Article  3 (1) 
The Committee  considers  that  it is vital  to encourage 
the fullest  possible  participation  of all  interested 
groups  in the drawing  up of programmes. 
The Committee  further  considers  that  Member  States 
do not  have  access  to some  of the  information 
shown  in  the  Annex.  It recommends  that  the 
Commission  simplify  the particulars  given  in the said 
Annex. 
The Section  therefore  proposes  that  Article  3 (1) 
should  be amended  to read: 
'Programmes  shall  be drawn  up by the  Member 
States  following  consultation  of socio-economic 
organizations  that  they  recognize  as  being 
representative,  and  shall  include  a report  based 
on the outline  given  in the Annex  hereto.' 
2.2.1.  A rt i cl e 3 (2) 
The Committee  points  out  that  when  the 
Commission  estimates  'the  need  for  the  products 
concerned',  it must  take  account,  among  other 
things,  of:  (i)  import  and  export  flows;  (ii) 
international  agreements. 
2.3. Article  6 
The Committee  asks  the  Commission  to make  sure 
that the  various  language  versions  are  in line  with 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/25 
the French  text.  This  remark  applies  particularly  to 
the Italian  version. 
2.3.0.  Article  6 ( e ) 
The Committee  points  out  that  difficulties  may  be 
created  in certain  regions  and  areas,  not  only  by 
measures  adopted  under  the  common  fisheries 
policy,  but  also  by  international  agreements. 
Accordingly,  the  Committee  proposes  that  Article  6 
(e) be amended  to read: 
'the need  to concentrate  action  in regions  which 
could  experience  special  difficulties  in adjusting 
to the  economic  and  social  consequences  of 
measures  taken  under  the  common  policy  for the 
fishing  industry  and  to the effects  of international 
agreements  on the fisheries  sector'. 
The Committee  trusts  that  such  agreements  will  be 
brought  within  the  scope  of the  common  fisheries 
policy  as soon  as possible. 
2.3.1.  Article  6(g) 
On the  subject  of  working  conditions,  the 
Committee  is aware  of the  special  nature  of the 
small-scale  inshore  fishing  industry,  but  would 
mention  the  need  to improve  all aspects  of working 
and employment  conditions,  including  the  question 
of the length  of the working  day. 
2.3.2.  Article  6 (i) 
The Committee  proposes  that  Article  6 (i) should  be 
amended  to read: 
'(i) safeguard  the  interests  of consumers,  above 
all as regards  product  quality  and  inter  alia 
by improving  the  distribution  system.' 
2.4. Article  7 
2.4.0.  The  Committee  firmly  endorses  the  three 
criteria  for  priority  which  are  set out  in Article  7. 
It considers  that  these  criteria  should  be cumulative. 
2.4.1.  Furthermore,  these  priorities  should  apply 
not only  to schemes,  but  also  to individual  projects. 
Accordingly  the  initial  part  of Article  7 should  be 
amended  as follows: 
'Priority  shall  be given  to those  schemes  and 
projects  which  meet  at least  two  of the  following 
general  criteria.' 2.4.2.  Article  7(c) 
The Committee  points  out  that  many  fishing 
cooperatives  do  not  qualify  for  recognition  as 
'producers'  organizations'  because  they  fail  to 
satisfy  the requirements  of the relevant  Regulation  as 
to minimum  annual  catch.  Such  cooperatives  can, 
however,  be appropriate  vehicles  for  restructuring 
projects  falling  within  the  present  proposal  for  a 
Regulation.  In some  cases,  these  cooperatives  must 
be treated  in the  same  way  as recognized  producers' 
associations. 
2.5.0.  By  analogy  with  the basic  Regulation  on the 
EAGGF  (Regulation  No  17/64),  the  Committee 
proposes  that  the  following  new  article  be added 
after  Article  7: 
'Article  7 A 
Effect  may  be given  to the  priorities  listed  in 
Article  7 by giving  preference  over  other  projects 
which  meet  the  criteria  set out  in Article  6 or by 
granting  aid  on more  favourable  terms.' 
2.6. Article  8 
2.6.0.  Article  8(1) 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  Article  8 (1) 
solely  by reference  to the water-line  length  of vessels 
is not enough. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  Article  8 (I) 
be amended  to read: 
'In order  to be eligible  for  assistance  from  the 
Fund  the projects  relating  to plant  and  equipment 
as specified  in Article  9 must  be carried  out  by 
persons: 
— who  fish  for  crustaceans,  molluscs  or fish, 
who  do not  freeze  their  catch  (this  proviso 
does  not,  however,  apply  to vessels  which 
preserve  shrimps  and  prawns  by  freezing), 
and who  operate  from  one  or more  vessels 
which  fly  the  flag  of a Member  State,  are 
registered  within  the  Community  territory, 
have  a water-line  length  of less  than  24 metres, 
or are  less  than  200  GRT,  or in exceptional 
cases  have  a water-line  length  of up to 36 
metres  or are  less  than  300  GRT  — subject 
to approval  from  the  Committee  referred  to 
in Article  23 — and  are  equipped  to be at 
sea for  a maximum  of 15 days, 
— or who  farm  fish,  crustaceans  or molluscs  on 
a family,  non-industrial  or cooperative  basis.' 
No C 197/26 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  observes  that  the farming  of 
fish,  crustaceans  and  shellfish  on an industrial  scale 
should,  likewise,  be encouraged.  It, therefore,  asks 
the Commission  to prepare  an ad hoc  instrument  as 
a matter  of urgency. 
2.6.2.  Article  8 ( 2) 
2.6.2.0.  The  Committee  considers  that  the 
wording  of the  first  indent  of Article  8 (2) must  be 
brought  into  line  with  the  definition  of a farmer 
given  in Article  3 of the  Council  Directive  of 17 
April  1972  on the modernization  of farms  (1). 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  the  first 
indent  of Article  8 (2) be amended  to read: 
'— if they  are  natural  persons,  have  carried  on 
fishing  activities  for  at least  five  years,  have 
obtained  and  are  obtaining  not  less  than  half 
of their  income  from  fishing  or fish-farming, 
and have  devoted  and  are  devoting  not  less 
than  half  of their  total  working  time  to 
fishing  or fish-farming  activities.' 
2.6.2.1.  The  Committee  recommends  to  the 
Commission  that  when  this  Article  is implemented, 
allowance  should  be made  for  the  various  de facto 
situations  in being  in the various  Member  States. 
2.6.3.  Article  8 ( 3 ) 
2.6.3.0.  The  Committee  wholly  endorses  the 
Commission's  proposal  to channel  Community  aid 
into research  and  vocational  retraining,  provided 
these  are  activities  that  complement  projects 
involving  the acquisition  of plant  and  equipment  for 
production,  processing  or marketing.  The  Committee 
hopes  that  by and  large  this  Commission  policy  can 
be applied  throughout  the agricultural  sector. 
2.6.3.1.  The  Committee  points  out  that  the  term 
'association'  should  be  understood  in the  broad 
sense;  it  does  not  refer  just  to  recognized 
associations. 
2.6.3.2.  The  Committee  requests  that  in the Italian 
version,  the  word  'beneficiari'  in the  third  line  of 
Article  8 (3) be replaced  by 'potenziali  beneficiari'. 
2.6.3.3.  To  ensure  that  all interested  parties  in the 
Community  have  access  to research  findings,  the 
Committee  believes  it should  be made  compulsory 
for these  findings  to be notified  to the Commission. 
(!) OJ No L 96, 23. 4. 1972. 2.7. Article  9 
2.7.0.  In  order  to avoid  misinterpretation,  the 
Committee  proposes  that  the  first  sentence  be 
changed  to read: 
'Plant  and  equipment  provided  for  in a project 
shall  satisfy  the following  requirements.' 
2.7.1.  Article  9 ( 1 ) 
In some  Member  States,  such  as Germany,  the 
Netherlands,  Denmark  and  Italy  (Northern  Adriatic) 
certain  types  of trawling  and  seining  by vessels  less 
than  12  metres  long  may  be  deemed  to  be 
economically  worthwhile.  The  Committee  therefore 
feels  that  the  Member  States  concerned  must  be 
permitted  to subsidize  specific  restructuring  projects 
through  national  aids. 
2.7.2.  Article  9 (2) 
The English  version  of  Article  9 (2)  should  be 
brought  into  line  with  the other  language  versions. 
2.7.3.  Article  9 ( 3 ) 
2.7.3.0.  The  Committee  proposes  that  the  second 
indent  should  read: 
'. .. in the  case  of mussel  culture  and  oyster 
farming  there  must  also  be suitable  equipment 
for purification  of the  products  before  marketing. 
Such  equipment  shall  not  be  necessary  if the 
culture  of farming  is carried  out  in water  which 
meets  the  purity  standards  laid  down  in 
Directives  of  the  European  Economic 
Community.' 
2.7.3.1.  In  the  French  text,  the  word  'adequates' 
is missing  after  the word  'installations'. 
2.8. Article  10 
The Committee  proposes  that  the  text  of Article  10 
should  read  as follows: 
'Where  a programme  which  has  been  the  subject 
of a Commission  Decision  provides  for  a 
reduction  in  fishing  —  necessitated  by  the 
overfishing  of traditionally  fished  grounds,  or by 
the fixing  of catch  quotas  established  under 
Community  arrangements,  or  as  a result  of 
marine  pollution,  or because  of the  need  to 
restructure  the  sector  following  changes  in the 
Law  of the  Sea  — the  Member  State  concerned 
may introduce  measures  to  encourage  the 
cessation  of activity  in non-industrial  inshore 
fishing.' 
23. 8.76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/27 
2.9. Article  11 
2.9.0.  Article  11  ( 1 ) 
2.9.0.1.  Article  11  ( 1 ) ( a ) 
As regards  the  annuity  for  the  cessation  of fishing, 
the Committee  considers  that  the  age  limits  should 
apply  solely  to eligibility  to apply.  Furthermore,  it is 
excessive  to require  all  fishing  to be  stopped;  it 
would  be sufficient  for fishing  for professional  ends 
to be given  up. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  Article 
11 (1) (a) be amended  to read: 
'(a) in the  case  of natural  persons,  the  grant  of 
an annuity  to persons  who  on  applying 
therefore  are aged  between  55 and  65 years 
and who  undertake  permanently  to cease 
professional  fishing.' 
2.9.0.2.  Article  11  ( 1 ) (b) 
The Committee  proposes  that  Article  11 (1) (b) be 
amended  to read  as follows: 
'In the  case  of both  natural  and  legal  persons, 
the grant  of a lump-sum  premium  to persons 
who  sell  their  vessels  to purchasers  in non-member 
countries,  provided  such  vessels  are  at least  15 
years  old.  Where  vessels  are sold  for breaking  up, 
the Commission,  using  the  procedure  set out  in 
Article  23, may  permit  a lower  age  limit;  vessels 
sold for  breaking  up  must  however  still  be 
seaworthy  if the  owner  is to qualify  for  the 
premium. 
A certificate  attesting  to the  fact  that  the  vessel 
has been  broken  up or is sailing  under  another 
flag shall  be  presented  by  applicants  for  the 
reimbursement  in question.' 
2.10.  Article  14 
2.10.0.  Article  14  ( 3 ) 
The Committee  refers  back  to the  remarks  made  in 
the 'general  comments'  section.  It trusts  that  funds 
will be  sufficient  for  the  objectives  that  the 
Commission  has  in view. 
2.11.  Article  IS 
2.11.0.  Article  15  (2) 
The Committee  proposes  that  the  Commission's  text 
be amended  to read  as follows: 'For any  given  project: 
— the  capital  subsidies  granted  by the Fund  shall 
not exceed  25  °/o of the  total  investment. 
However,  in the  case  of recipients  covered  by 
the second  indent  of Article  8 (1),  the capital 
subsidies  granted  by the Fund  may  be as high 
as 40 °/o. Aid  granted  by the  Fund  for  the 
projects  referred  to in Article  8 (3) shall  not 
exceed  5 °/o of the  total  amount  granted  in 
respect  of the  projects  forming  part  of the 
scheme  concerned, 
— recipients  must  contribute  not  less  than  50 % 
of the  total  investment.  Recipients  covered  by 
the second  indent  of Article  8 (1),  however, 
must  contribute  not  less  than  30 °/o.' 
2.11.1.  Article  15  (3) 
The Committee  proposes  that  the  text  of Article 
15 (3) should  read  as follows: 
'Aid from  the fund  may  be granted  in respect  of 
marketing  facilities  used  by  persons  who  sell 
their  produce  either  directly  or  through 
cooperative  organizations.  No  capital  subsidies 
shall  be granted  in respect  of marketing  facilities 
at the retail  trade  stage.' 
2.11.2.  Article  15  (4) 
The Committee  would  point  out  that  the  Regulation 
specified  at the end  of Article  15 (4) may  be adopted 
by the  Council  after  the  present  proposal.  The 
Committee  therefore  proposes  that  the  phrase 
beginning  'but  shall  not  exceed'  and  ending  'sea 
fishing  industry'  should  be deleted. 
2.12.  Article  16 
The Committee  observes  that,  according  to Article 
4 (2) (b),  applications  for  aid from  the  Fund  have  to 
be contained  in development  schemes.  Consequently, 
it considers  it inappropriate  for pre-determined  dates 
to be laid  down  by which  the  Member  States  are  to 
submit  applications.  Furthermore,  the  requirements 
of Article  4 (2) would  appear  to be superfluous. 
The Committee  therefore  proposes  that  Article  16 
should  read  as follows: 
'Applications  for  aid  from  the  Fund  shall  be 
submitted  to the  Commission  by  the  Member 
States  concerned.  Such  applications  shall  comply 
with  the  stipulations  of Article  4 (2)  of this 
Regulation  before  1 July  and  31 December  each 
year.  The  Commission  shall  take  a decision  on 
such  applications  not  later  than  30 June  and  31 
December  respectively  of the  following  year.' 
No C 197/28 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
2.13.  Article  18 
In connection  with  the  proposed  amendments  to 
Article  16, the Committee  proposes  that  the words  at 
the end  of the  sentence  in line  4 'the  following 
period  for  applications'  be replaced  by the  words 
'the following  financial  year  .. Accordingly,  the Committee  proposes  that  Article  21 
(1) (b) should  read  as follows: 
'(b) in respect  of the sale  of vessels  for breaking 
up or to non-member  countries:  200  units  of 
account  per gross  registered  metric  ton'. 
2.14.  Article  21 
The Committee  stresses  that  the limits  laid  down  in 
Article  21  refer  to EAGGF  reimbursements  to 
Member  States.  They  are  not  limits  so far  as 
beneficiaries  are  concerned,  since  they  may  obtain 
greater  annuities  than  those  set out  in this  Article. 
Furthermore,  Article  21 must  be altered  to make 
allowance  for  that  which  has  been  proposed  in 
respect  of Article  11 (1) (b). 2.15.  Article  24 
The Committee  trusts  that  the date  stipulated  in this 
Article  for the entry  into  force  of the Regulation  can 
be met. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  fixing  the  main  intervention 
centres  for oil seeds  for the 1976/77  marketing  year  and  the derived  intervention  prices 
applicable  at these  centres 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 128  of 10 June  1976,  page  46. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 27 April  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  43 and  198  of the Treaty  establishing 
the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
1.39th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Articles  43 and  198  of the Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the European  Community  on 27 April 
1976, 
Having  regard  to  the  decision  taken  by  the 
Chairman  under  Articles  46  and  47  (urgency procedure)  of the Rules  of Procedure,  instructing  the 
Section  for Agriculture  to draw  up an opinion  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to previous  work  on the  matter,  in 
particular  its opinion  of 25 June  1975  (*), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Schnieders, 
(*) OJ No C 263,  17. 11. 1975.