29.1286 COfficial]ournal of the European Communities NoC^B2^ 
Opinion on the proposal foraCouncil Regulation (EEC) on Community measures to improve 
and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculturesectors(^) 
(86^C^^B08) 
On20ctober 1986theCoun^ildecidedto consult theEconomicandSocialCommittee, 
under Article 198 oftheTreaty establishing the European Community,on the abovementioned 
proposal 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Air Aiuni^Cuardado as rapporteurs 
general v^ith the tasl^ of preparing its worl^ on the subject. 
At its 241st plenary session (meeting of 26 November 1986), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following opinion v^ith no dissenting votes but v^ith nine abstentions. 
The Committee approves the Commission proposal subject to the comments set out below. 
1. Ceneral comments 
PL Community structuralpolicy to datehasbeen 
largely based on Regulations (EEC) No 2908^8^ and 
(EEC)No2909^83andCouncillOirective8^eol^,along 
side other regulations and instuments extending and 
modifying those mentioned above. 
1.2, TheCommission^smovetoprovidetheCom 
munitywithauniform set of provisions which covers 
the common fisheries policy^s structural needs in a 
singleregulationfillssomethingofalegalvacuum.lt 
provides standard criteria and harmonises the develop 
ment and improvement of Community structures, 
underpinned by budgetary support which—whilst not 
as substantial as might havebeen desired—serves as 
the beginnings of a coherent structural policy. It is 
important that the Commission should now tackle the 
Community^sfisheriessituationonthebasisof more 
realistic criteria gleaned from its own experience. It is 
also significant that the programmes are to last 
10 years, allowing the sector to look towards its future 
with greater confidence. 
1,^, Idowever, the Committee feels that some of the 
terms used in the proposal are not precise enough 
(sector, satisfactory^sufficient, public, data, etc). Phis 
gives the Commission excessive powers both in the 
interpretation of the draft regulation and in the 
decisions to betaken on the basis of this interpretation. 
1,4, The Committee also notes the absence of incen 
tives for design changes tovessels aimed at increasing 
safety and improving life on board. 
^oi^De^^.um^D^ IBo, The Committee regrets that the proposal is com 
pletely lacking in social measures. It is inexplicable 
why,as marked progress has been made in combining 
all thecommonfisheriesmeasuresintoasinglereguD 
lation, the Commission should have neglected the social 
measures aimed at forwarding social harmonization. 
1,0,1, fhe Committee refers to its previous opinion 
on this sector, and urges the Commission to make 
proposalstobeadoptedby theCouncil in line with 
Articles 11B and 118 ofthe Treaty, 
1.6, Articled isimportant,providingderogations 
in special cases from various technical requirements 
laid down elsewhere in the proposal. 
1,B, If lackof time prevents the Commission from 
incorporating the Committee^sproposalsinthe final 
regulation (either in whole or in part), the Commission 
is asked to insert them in the implementing rules. 
1,8. The Committeereserves therighttodraw up 
more detailed comments on the proposal atalater date. 
2, Specific comments 
2,1, P^^Ai^r^^^^^^^^^ro^r^^^^ 
2,1,1, The Committee welcomes the long timespan 
of theprogrammes. rlowever,itconsidersthat three 
months is much too briefaperiodforthe member States 
to be able to submitabalanced, coherent programme 
on their fishing fleet, aquaculture and provision of 
protected marine areas. 
No C 333/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 12. 86 
2.1.2. The Committee stresses the need for proper 
measures to adapt capacities. Such measures must have 
minimal socio-economic effects on areas whose devel­
opment is largely dependent on (mainly non-industrial 
inshore) fishing. 
2.1.3. Programmes which affect the fleet must also 
take account of the potential stocks available to it. It 
is thus vital that these structural measures be 
accompanied by a swift, complete and reliable assess­
ment of all the Community's fish stocks. 
2.2. Title II: Restructuring and renewal of the fishing 
fleet 
2.2.1. The Committee considers that the Com­
mission should extend the derogations provided by 
Article 53 to vessels of less than 9 or 10 metres in length 
in cases where failure to grant aid to this type of vessel 
would have economic and social repercussions for areas 
whose development relies solely on these small vessels. 
2.2.2. At all events, it should be noted that the con­
cept of 'sensitive region' used to determine the Com­
munity's contribution to the renovation and moderniza­
tion of the fleet distorts competition between the vari­
ous regions when such aid is granted. A 'sensitive 
region' from the point of view of development per se 
is very different from a 'sensitive region' from the point 
of view of fisheries development; and in the latter 
case different types of fleet may have reached different 
development levels within the same region. 
2.2.3. The 5 percentage point increase in Community 
aid should be extended to projects which will substan­
tially improve safety and life on board. In some 
countries, vessels very often have three or four joint 
owners. These vessels are generally used for non-indus­
trial inshore fishing, and support whole families. The 
same considerations should apply to Articles 8 and 9. 
Strict application of this point would prevent the regu­
lation from achieving its expressed aims. 
2.2.4. Article 9(2)(b) needs clarification. Does 'per­
manently withdrawn from fishing activities in the Com­
munity' mean from Community waters of from the 
Community register of vessels? 2.2.5. The criteria used for the renewal of the fleet 
should take full account of fishing potential (stocks, 
TACs and marine resources in general) and the state 
of the fishing grounds (overfishing, sensitive regions). 
2.3. Title 111: Modernization of the fishing fleet 
2.3.1. The comments contained in points 2.2.1, 2.2.2 
and 2.2.3 also apply to Article 10 of this Title. 
2.3.2. The Committee feels that the minimum levels 
of investment eligible for aid should be lower than the 
30 000 and 15 000 ECU per project suggested. As it 
stands, the proposal would make smaller projects for 
the neediest fleets unviable. 
2.3.3. Certain necessary improvements to vessel 
equipment (safety, detection, vessel position, treatment 
of catch) will not be carried out because their costs 
will be below the eligibility level. Not only would the 
Commission fail to achieve the aims of this Title—aims 
which are of basic importance to the non-industrial 
inshore fleet; the provisions could actually be counter­
productive, e.g. in producing applications for more aid 
than is really needed. 
2.3.4. The Committee is concerned that the proposed 
reduction in the levels of Community aid and financial 
contributions for the restructuring, renewal and moder­
nization of the fishing fleet will cause problems in those 
countries where low rates of interest are unavailable. 
It is proposed that existing levels remain in force. 
2.3.5. In regard to Article 10 (3) (e) the Committee 
feels that the restriction of modernization costs to 50% 
of the value of a new vessel is unduly restrictive for 
certain wooden-hulled vessels which have a consider­
able useful life remaining but a low market value, in 
that no new vessels of this type would be built. 
2.4. Title IV: Development of aquaculture and struc­
tural works in coastal waters 
2.4.1. The Committee feels that the specification that 
physical investments in the construction, equipment or 
modernization of installations should be for projects 
with a 'purely commercial purpose' should be widened 
to include more general objectives such as repopulation. 
2.4.2. The financial contribution should also cover 
investment in the purchase of fish fry. 
2.4.3. The limits on investment should at all events 
be consistent with the viability and needs of the projects, 
using such criteria as the level of research on the planned 
product, the economic situation in the region where the 
29. 12. 86 Official Journal of the 
physical investment is to be made, profitability and the 
supply situation of the Community market. 
2.4.4. As the market in aquaculture products is still 
in its infancy, the Commission should support the devel­
opment of aquaculture research and of enterprises simi­
lar to those operating successfully in other countries. 
Failure to do this would limit the EEC's production 
capacity and very soon put Community firms at a 
serious disadvantage against rival producers, with 
attendant risks for the investment made and the jobs 
created. 
2.4.5. As well as the farming of fully-fledged fish 
varieties, the Commission should seriously consider the 
case for encouraging fishermen (via their associations) 
to use floating cage structures or similar techniques for 
the on-growing of certain varieties of fish-fry. This fry 
could be fed wholly or partly on surplus or unwanted 
sea produce. 
This would help create jobs, and link the fish-catching 
sector more closely with aquaculture. 
2.5. Title V: Exploratory fishing 
2.5.1. The Committee thinks that in many cases the 
incentive premium both from the Community and from 
the Member State(s) is inadequate. The percentage 
needs to be defined much more clearly: Article 16(1) 
states that it 'must not exceed 20%', indicating that it 
could be less. 
At all events, the Committee feels that the EEC contri­
bution should be above 20%. 
2.5.2. The restrictions, both on vessel length and on 
the length of the voyages, must be lifted: exploratory 
fishing voyages must be carried out by vessels suited to 
the area being explored and the type of fishing to be 
developed. 
2.5.3. There are large, little-known areas both within 
the Community and outside it. Exploratory fishing 
should therefore not exclude any area. 
2.5.4. In the Committee's view, it is unrealistic to 
limit these voyages to countries with which the Com­
munity has concluded or is negotiating a fishing agree­
ment, as this would rule out the possibility of voyages 
in other countries with which the Community has no European Communities No C 333/25 
such agreement. This would reduce both the fishing 
potential of Community vessels and the potential for 
expanding the Community fleet. The Commission is 
therefore asked to authorize exploratory fishing voy­
ages in all countries with which the Community main­
tains relations. 
2.5.5. The Commission is also asked to increase the 
percentage both of its contribution and of that of the 
Member State(s) for exploratory voyages to areas with 
harsh (cold) climates and of long duration; a doctor or 
specialist could then be present on board to analyse 
all aspects of the fishermen's living conditions (food, 
clothing, recreation, working conditions, etc.). 
2.5.6. Exploratory fishing should also cover tests by 
vessels trying out special tackle or techniques. 
2.6. Title VI: Joint ventures 
2.6.1. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
widen its definition of joint ventures (with natural or 
legal persons in countries with which the Community 
maintains relations on fishing matters) to include 
countries with which the Community has relations of 
any sort (cf. the similar proposal in 5.4. above). 
2.6.2. Although the supply of the Community mar­
ket is an important priority, the Committee also feels 
it of fundamental importance that Community vessels 
be able to fish as efficiently as possible, even if this 
involves catching species which are of interest to the 
international market rather than the Community 
market. 
2.7. Title VII: Adjustment of capacities 
2.7.1. The criteria for temporary withdrawal must 
be applied with flexibility, in line with fishing require­
ments. 
2.7.2. The laying-up premium should be granted 
after 100 days' fishing rather than the 120 days pro­
posed, and the minimum for the additional periods laid-
up should be 30 consecutive days. 
No C 333/26 Official Journal of 
2.7.3. The term 'purposes other than fishing in Com­
munity waters' in Article 25 (1) (c) needs clarification. 
2.7.4. In the case of wooden-hulled vessels, the final 
cessation premium could fit in with the contribution 
referred to in Article 12 (b) if the vessels were sunk to 
provide biotopes for the protection or development of 
fish stocks. This would mean an increase in the action 
. which the Commission favours for this type of fleet, 
and would encourage owners to withdraw this type of 
vessel permanently. 
2.7.5. This would apply only to vessels of up to 99 
gross registered tonnes (GRT), and could be extended 
to steel-hulled vessels of the same GRT. 
2.8. Title VIII: Port facilities 
2.8.1. The Commission is asked to clarify whether 
the 'body appointed for the purpose' (Article 29 (2) (b)) 
is necessarily a private body. 
2.9. Title IX: Search for new markets 
2.9.1. The Committee is pleased that for the first 
time the Commission intends to adopt measures to 
increase the consumption of fish in the Community. 
Alongside the consumption of fish products derived 
from surplus or underfished species, the measures pro­
posed in Article 31 (1) could promote new fish products 
or preparations for the consumer. 
2.9.2. The Committee feels that the financial contri­
bution in this Title should be extended to aquaculture 
products whose production is reliably forecast to rise 
steeply, in order to develop present and future demand 
and consolidate the Community's domestic market. 
Brussels, 26 November 1986. European Communities 29. 12. 86 
2.10. Title X: Specific measures 
2.10.1. The specific measures which the Commission 
may decide to implement relating to the structure of 
the fish industry are interesting for their flexibility. 
However, the Committee feels that this is a large appro­
priation whose use should not be governed by excess­
ively detailed rules. 
2.11. Title XI: Procedure for the examination of pro­
jects and obligations of beneficiaries 
2.11.1. The Commission is urged to advise Member 
States to take steps to ensure that their representatives 
are properly informed and to minimize red tape. 
2.11.2. The words 'may be taken into consideration' 
(Article 39(2)) should be amended to 'shall be taken 
into consideration'. 
2.12. Title XII: General and financial provisions 
2.12.1. The Committee warmly welcomes the Com­
munity aid referred to in Articles 7, 10 and 12 and 
detailed in Article 45: reductions in interest rates, capi­
tal contributions to the establishment or enlargement 
of guarantee funds, capital subsidies, and reimbursable 
advances. This represents a new line of action on the 
part of the Commission which is highly positive and 
realistic, and marks the start of a different approach to 
that pursued in these areas to date. 
2.13. ANNEX I 
2.13.1 Minimum information to be included in multi-
annual guidance programmes — programmes 
concerning the fishing fleet 
Since vessel length is the determinant factor in the Titles 
on construction and modernization, the Committee 
feels that the Commission should add this to point 2 
alongside tonnage, engine power and age. 
The type of hull should also be specified (wood, steel, 
glass fibre, other). 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT