*$fa&iê 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 30.05.1996 
COM(96) 203 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
relating to management guidelines for the 4th generation of multi-annual guidance programmes or 
MGFs. 

CONTENTS 
1. Aspirations of the new MAGP IV 
2. The adoption of the MAGP IV 
2.1 Wide consultations as a preliminary to debate in the Council 
2.2 The principles of the MAGP III retained 
3. The classic debate: capacity reduction or mixed measures? 
4. Treatment of passive gear, and rules on fishing gear 
5. Content of MAGP IV 
5.1 Report by the group of independent experts, and technical progress 
5.2 The socioeconomic impact of reductions 
5.3 Fleet segmentation 
5.4 The special case of small-scale fisheries 
5.5 The permanent nature of structural measures 
5.6 Period of application of the MAGP IV 
5.7 Additional criterion for programme monitoring 
5.8 Penalty system for non-compliance with the objectives 
6. Adoption procedures 
6.1 Heightening the awareness of Hie decision-makers and the press 
6.2 Preparatory work 
6.2.1 Reports from the Member States 
6.2.2 The scientific report by the group of independent experts 
6.2.3 Socio-economic report following regional consultations 
6.3 The two-tier decision-making system 
6.3.1 Council decision in June 1996 
6.3.2 13 Commission decisions in November 1996 
7. Conclusion 
Annex I Showing the relationship between fleet, resources and structural measures 
Annex II Implementation of MGP IV - the simple picture 
Annex III The social and economic impact of measures to reduce fleet over-capacities 
Annex IV The independent experts' report's principal recommendations 
Annex V Synthesis of regional consultations 
Annex VI Illustration of the decision making process relative to the adoption of MGP IV. 
4 
1. Aspirations of the new MAGP IV 
The Commission's 1991 report1 on the common fisheries policy stressed the need for a strong link between 
resource management and fishing effort management, i.e. between the management of outputs through 
TACs and quotas, and the management of inputs, especially fleet capacity, which is the basic factor in 
fishing effort, (see Annex I). 
This link was forged when the Council debated the MAGP III in December 1993; in view of major surplus 
capacity in the segments of the Community fleet targeting certain categories of resources, objectives for 
the reduction of fishing effort were adopted for 1992-95: 20% for demersal species, 15% for benthic 
species and 0% for pelagic species, considerably less ambitious than the Commission's initial proposal2. 
These targets were laid down in a series of Commission Decisions on the fleets of the Member States3 The 
arrangements were extended to Sweden and Finland on their accession.4 
We are now approaching the end of the period of application of the MAGP III, and it is clear that, while 
there has been some decline in the surplus capacity of the Community fishing fleet, the objectives have 
not been achieved, in particular by certain Member States that had much lost time to make up. Moreover, 
the technical progress achieved in the industry over the period certainly hampered compliance with the 
guidelines. 
A further exacerbating factor has been the repetition of catastrophic declines in prices in recent years, 
which has led some fleets to increase fishing to offset the drop in income; this has contributed to increasing 
fishing effort, further aggravating over-exploitation of resources. 
These factors combine to explain why, during the period observed, available estimates of the development 
of resources do not, in general, reflect significant progress. Indeed, in many cases, there has been a decline 
in stocks, matched by a deterioration in the economic situation in the sector. In the circumstances, there 
is no alternative to reprogramming objectives with a view to a further reduction in surplus fleet capacity, 
so as to: 
improve stocks; 
boost competitiveness and profitability. 
Given their impact on regional social and economic life, fleet restructuring measures must be 
implemented taking into account the viewpoints of regional community policy and developing these coastal 
zones dépendant on fishing. 
1991 Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Common 
Fisheries Policy (SEC (91)2288 final). 
Council Decision 94/15/EC of 20 December 1993 relating to the objectives and detailed rules for 
restructuring the Community fisheries sector over the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 
1996 (OJL 10, 14.01.94). 
Commission Decisions 92/588/EEC to 92/598/EEC of 21 December 1992 on multiannual guidance 
programmes for fishing fleets for the period 1993 to 1996 (OJ L 401, 31.12.1992), and 
Commission Decisions 95/238/EC to 95/248/EC of 7 June 1995 amending Decisions 92/588/EEC 
to 92/598/EEC (OJL 166, 15.7.1995). 
Council Decision 95/577/EC of 22 December 1995 concerning the objectives and detailed rules 
for restructuring the fisheries sector in Finland and Sweden over the period 1 January 1995 to 31 
December 1996; Commission Decisions 96/73/EC and 96/74/EC of 22 December 1995 on 
multiannual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets of Finland and Sweden for the period 1995 
to 1996 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. 
2. The adoption of MAGP IV 
2.1 Wide consultations as a preliminary to debate in the Council 
The MAGP IV, like the MAGP III, will be debated at length by the Council. The debate, however, needs 
to be carefully prepared by means of a series of regional consultations with trade organizations and all 
those involved in the fishing industry. The Commission is anxious to ensure that all possible has been done 
to inform the Council of the full implications of a programme to adjust fleet capacity, whose objectives 
may be difficult to attain. 
To this end, 34 regional consultations were organized between November 1995 and March 1996 with the 
backing of the national authorities in the Community regions most strongly dependent on fisheries. As well 
as regional meetings, there have been, and will be, several consultations with European fisheries 
organizations, including consultations with the Advisory Committee on Fisheries on 24 January and 21 
May 1996. The Commission will try to profit from the views exchanged in these consultations on the 
development of the activities of the Community fishing fleet, and the ideas of the trade on the content and 
application of the MAGP IV and accompanying financial measures. 
2.2 The principles of the MAGP HI retained 
The guiding principles behind the MAGP III, including openness and transparency, fair treatment for 
Member States, and flexibility, will be retained; this will guarantee that each Member State will be able 
to find a suitable response, within the operational framework of the MAGP IV, to its specific needs in view 
of the type of fleet and fishing activities, but without the MAGP IV being used, at any time, as an excuse 
for special treatment or a means of by-passing the principle of the relative stability of fishing activities. 
To ensure openness and transparency, the methodology adopted will be universally comprehensible and 
susceptible to verification. 
Fairness involves asking the Member States to apply the same rates of reduction to the same segments of 
the industry without discrimination between fleets, types of vessels or types of gear (passive or towed). 
Flexibility means allowing the Member States to group certain segments of the fleet together, if they see 
fit. On the principle adopted for the MAGP III, the rate of reduction applicable to the group as a whole 
will be that applicable to the most sensitive species in the group. 
The adjustment of the fishing effort through the application of structural measures will not affect the 
relative stability of Member States' take-up offish as expressed in the mode of allocation of fishing quotas. 
Indeed, by aiming at profitability for fishing operations through the elimination of over-capacity, the 
MAGP IV will reduce the risk of fraud while enabling quotas to be fully taken up under normal conditions. 
3. The classic debate: capacity reduction or mixed measures? 
It will be remembered that the MAGP I and II, which were in force in 1983-91, set fairly modest objectives 
for limitation of fishing fleet capacity as a whole, for each national fleet. Over the period 1992-96, the 
MAGP III took a new and different approach, setting ceilings on fishing efforts by segment of the fleet, 
these ceilings were considerably lower than the earlier objectives. 
The new practice of expressing objectives in terms of fishing effort in the MAGP began in the transitional 
MAGP of 1992, where 25% of the requisite capacity reductions could be achieved through cutting fishing 
activity. This innovation soon led the Commission to define proper conditions for implementation, which 
necessarily involved recourse to the concept of fishing effort. Consequently, in the MAGP III, objectives 
could be expressed in terms of fishing effort, and achieved through measures combining capacity reduction 
and reduction of activity (mixed approach). However, to retain the structural character of the MAGP III, 
at least 55% of the objectives were to be achieved by capacity reduction (capacity reduction approach). 
Although most Member States nowadays support capacity reduction alone as the best means of eliminating 
over-capacity, some are particularly anxious to retain a mixed approach. It must be admitted, however, that 
not even those Member States who take that view have so far exploited the option provided in the 
MAGP III of implementing the measures for the reduction of fishing activities that could be taken into 
account for the programme. 
In the circumstances, there are grounds for doubting whether this method of fixing objectives in terms of 
fishing effort, as was done in the MAGP III, can be of further practical use. The question is pressing, since 
later Community rules developed new arrangements for the management of fishing effort in specific fishing 
grounds, in parallel to the arrangements for the management of fishing effort by segment of the fleet in 
the MAGP. 
The MAGP IV should attempt to set objectives for the adjustment of capacity so that for a segment of the 
fleet carrying out its activity normally in a given fishing ground, the ceilings on fishing effort are not 
exceeded. The Commission's idea would be to ensure a link between structural measures for the elimination 
of over-capacity in the MAGP IV and the measures for the management of fishing effort in the new 
Community rules. The link would be forged in two stages (see annex II). 
First stage (capacity reduction approach): The MAGP IV would set objectives for the reduction of 
capacity for each segment of the fleet by 31 December 1996; these objectives would correspond to the 
objectives for fishing mortality for each type of resource decided by the Council on a proposal from the 
Commission. For multipurpose fleets, the rate of reduction would be that decided for the most sensitive 
species concerned. 
Second stage (mixed approach): In the course of implementation of the programmes, the Member States 
who wished to control fishing activity coutd submit fishing effort management programmes for each fishing 
ground to the Commission. At this stage, the link between fleet segments as defined in the MAGP IV and 
the fishing grounds subject to controls would have to be accurately established, if possible. At this second 
stage, the arrangements for managing fishing efforts by fleet segment, as laid down in the MAGP III, 
would finally disappear. Only those Member states with historical data on the activities of their fleet, and 
in a position to undertake to monitor fishing activity effectively, could accede to this second stage. 
For fleets that target a single species or fishing ground, this framework will be fairly simple; for 
multipurpose fleets, targeting a variety of resources with differing objectives for fishing effort reduction 
in different grounds, it is more complicated. For such fleets, the Commission might propose a rate of 
capacity reduction intermediate between the rates required for the most sensitive and the least sensitive 
resources, as long as the Member States are capable of organizing an appropriate allocation of efforts 
directed at the different resources. With this arrangement, ceilings on efforts could be respected through 
the elimination of over-capacity. Such an approach implies, as an essential condition, that the Member State 
should guarantee the reduction in fishing effort for the most threatened species. 
The Commission is of the opinion that this approach would certainly be preferable to the existing one as: 
it respects the spirit of the structural measures, while ensuring the elimination of over-capacity; 
it ensures a proper link between structural measures and conservation measures (management of 
fishing efforts); 
it eliminates unnecessary duplication between two schemes for the management of fishing effort, 
in the MAGP III on the one hand, and in the framework of Community rules on fishing efforts 
for specific fishing grounds on the other; 
it does not impose systematic capacity reductions in the fishing grounds where reduction in 
activity will suffice to ensure respect for the ceilings on effort. 
4. Treatment of passive gear, and rules on fishing gear 
When the fleet was classified into segments for the purposes of drawing up the MAGP III, it was 
recognized that the usual measurement parameters for the MAGP objectives (Kw and GRT) could not 
properly measure the fishing effort due to passive gear. It is clear that tonnage and engine power do not 
reveal the fishing effort of a trap setter.as it will depend mainly on the surface of the nets set, or the 
number of hooks or baskets used, and the length of time they stay in the water. 
Since the adoption of the MAGP III, some progress has been made towards improving the selectiveness 
of fixed nets through technical measures governing mesh sizes. However, nothing has been done about 
limiting the efficiency of gear. It has now transpired that the fishing effort of these segments of the fleet 
has not been restricted in the same way as that of the vessels using towed gear. 
For passive gear, as for other fishing gear, technical measures are intended to improve selectiveness, but 
they cannot take the place of restrictions on fishing effort. Restrictions on fishing effort for passive gear 
still raise a specific problem, in that the relevant restrictions are those affecting the features of the gear 
rather than the vessels. 
However, in very specific programmed cases where technical measures are intended to lead to a substantial 
improvement in the selectiveness of fishing operations as between species (i.e. reduction in by-catches), 
the Commission intends to study the effects of these programmes on fishing mortality case by case; the 
results could then be taken into account in the MAGP. 
5. Content of MAGP IV 
5.1 Report by the group of independent experts, and technical progress 
On the basis of past experience, the Commission decided to form a group of experts, as was done for the 
MAGP III. This new group of experts recently identified the resources where a reduction in fishing effort 
is needed. The recommendations of the group match those of the competent scientific bodies, and reproduce 
their conclusions, with additional considerations on the size of fleets. The overall situation of the stocks 
targeted by the Community fleet is described. 
Of course, the scientists recommend adopting fishing effort reduction measures as soon as possible. Taking 
account of technical progress, which may be expected to lead to an increase of 2% at the very least over 
the long term, the objectives for annual reduction must rise by the same percentage to ensure that the 
decline achieved is not neutralized by technical progress. 
5.2 The socio-economic impact of reductions 
The impact of fleet reductions on areas dependent on fishing can be measured both socially and 
economically (see Annex III). 
At a social level, a reduction in fishing capacity will have a negative effect on jobs at sea and upstream 
of fishing (supplies, shipyards and harbour administration). On the other hand, the downstream sector will 
suffer only during the time required for the "recapitalization" offish stocks, since the quantities caught will 
eventually increase, thus increasing the number of downstream jobs (all other things being equal) 
In economic terms, the profitability of fishing companies and the competitiveness of European products 
will improve considerably as a result of the elimination of the overcapacity of Community fleet. 
The negative effects of direct and indirect job losses will be taken into account in the Structural Fund 
measures (FIFG, PESCA, Objectives 1,2 and 5(b)). Since December 1995, direct job losses resulting from 
restructuring are covered by special social measures for the sector (part-financing of early retirement 
schemes and retirement grants). 
The Commission thinks that staggering the restructuring measures, together with the financial measures to 
help the Sector, will soften their impact. In other words, and this is a major political issue, the Council's 
decision to stagger the restructuring measures, which the group of experts thinks should be adopted as soon 
as possible, will lessen their immediate impact on coastal communities. 
On the other hand, it could lead to a prolongation of the structural crisis in the sector. Technical progress, 
which has been exacerbated by large amounts of aid for modernization in the sector (ECU 740m between 
1994 and 1999) should not be allowed to bring to nought the anticipated effects of timid restructuring 
measures resulting from the unambitious objectives that have been laid down. 
5.3 Segmentation of fleets and fisheries 
For the MAGP III, the number of segments and their contents were defined by the Member States 
themselves on the basis of a general framework proposed by the Commission. For MAGP IV, the 
Commission would like to propose a new general framework based on three elements defining the fisheries 
as biological management units, groups of species and fishing gear. 
Recognition of the special nature of certain fishing activities can be based on the identification of 
management units. The Commission thinks it is advisable to operate using relatively large biological 
management units (Mediterranean, Baltic) each time it is possible to identify areas of development and 
confinement of stocks in relation to the fleets. Fleet segmentation should provide the answer to the often 
imperfect match between species development areas and the multi-purpose and opportunistic nature of 
fishing. 
The Commission thinks it is essential to organize the restructuring of some fleets into appropriate 
segments whose objectives 'will be laid down taking account of access rules not exclusively based on 
biological considerations. This will involve identification of restructuring measures taken for other reasons 
(access to Moroccan waters, ban on certain fishing gear, etc.). 
Where possible segmentation will determine homogeneous groups of vessels to which particular objectives 
can apply in relation to those fisheries exploited. As a rule the objectives will receive Community financial 
support (Structural Funds). In some circumstances it will be necessary to ask whether it is justified for 
some fleet segments, such as tropical freezer tuna seiners, to continue to receive Community investment 
aid, given how they are fitted out, the extent of their fishing activities and the aid they receive from 
elsewhere (fisheries agreements and compensatory allowances). 
5.4 The special case of small-scale fisheries 
Very small-scale inshore fishing from small craft at sea for less than 24 hours provides most jobs at sea, 
even though many of them are seasonal. Production from small-scale inshore fishing is low in volume but 
high in value. As a rule it takes place in a narrow coastal band. The sector is going through a natural and 
continuous fall in fishing capacity and jobs. 
With MAGP IV, the Commission would like to identify all non-trawler small-scale vessels fishing for local 
stocks in order to put them in a fleet segment whose capacity would be defined in terms of numbers of 
vessels and tonnage. This approach would make it possible for the sector to be modernized for safety 
reasons and to improve fish processing on board by installing new engines. 
This measure would not apply to small-scale vessels fishing for shared stocks, nor to trawlers whose engine 
power affects the fishing effort, monitoring of which in coastal waters would have to be stepped up 
considerably. The Commission departments think stricter measures forbidding fishing in certain coastal 
waters should be adopted (boxes). 
5.5 The permanent nature of structural measures 
Under the multiannual guidance programmes, the measures to reduce fishing effort have permanent effects 
for each component (capacity and activity). The structural nature of these programmes is based on the idea 
that once the capacity of a segment or the activity of a vessel has been reduced, there is no turning back. 
Based on the law according to which the same causes have the same effects, any renewed increase in 
capacity, and consequently in fishing effort, would place the sector in the same difficulties it was in before. 
It must also be quite clear to everyone that, where a Member State has been able, by means of a fishing 
effort management system, to undercut the objectives laid down in its MAGP IV in terms of capacity (See 
Section 3), the effort reductions will then be final and it will no longer be possible for it to increase its 
fishing activities. For example: the reductions in fishing effort allowed for in the MAGP II for the 
Netherlands is a measure which has permanently reduced the activity of beam trawlers in that country. Any 
subsequent increase in that activity would mean a reassessment of the capacity objectives for that segment. 
5.6 Period of application of the MAGP IV 
For financial planning reasons related to the Structural Funds, the Commission thinks that MAGP IV 
should cover the period 1997-1999. Application of MAGP IV will thus coincide with the financial 
measures under the Structural Funds planned for the same period However, it unlikely that this three-year 
period will be enough to permanently eliminate the overcapacity of the fleet. Therefore, a MAGP V to be 
applied after MAGP IV cannot be excluded. 
5.7 Additional criterion for programme monitoring 
In order to match the licence and special permit schemes to particular fleet segments, the Commission 
thinks it desirable to add a fourth parameter to the customary fishing effort monitoring parameters (power, 
tonnage and days at sea) by which, where necessary, the number of vessels per segment is counted 
(nb).This parameter could prove to be useful in following certain fleet segments ( fixed gear, small scale 
fisheries) in which the fishing effort is not accurately reflected by the usual parameters (GT,KW). 
This does not mean that it will be necessary to use the four parameters simultaneously when the objectives 
of the MAGP are laid down. 
5.8 Penalty system in cases of non-compliance with the objectives 
Failure to comply with Community provisions makes the Member States liable to infringement procedures 
under Article 169 of the Treaty. This will apply to failure to comply with measures adopted under the 
MAGPs III and IV. 
Without prejudice to Article 169 of the Treaty, if the Commission establishes that a Member State has not 
made the appropriate decrees to ensure that fleet re-structuring objectives are respected, it may submit 
proposals to the Council on appropriate general measures. The Council decides by qualified majority 
(Article 25 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2487/93). 
In addition, there is Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, according to which the Member 
States may not take vessel construction or fleet modernization measures producing additional fishing effort 
if they have not complied with the objectives of the programmes. 
In the course of the programme, these provisions applying to the overall intermediate measures and the 
final objectives for each segment are objected to by those in the trade whose vessel is or was in a fleet 
segment whose objectives have been attained. 
The Commission recognizes the difficulties which these provisions can cause for some beneficiaries of 
investment projects, and are planning a reform of the present rules which in respect of the investment aid 
schemes will only require the intermediate and final objectives for each segment to be complied with. 
J 
6. Adoption procedures 
6.1 Heightening the awareness of the decision-makers and public opinion 
The Commission took pains to prepare the decision-makers, i.e. the European fisheries ministers, for the 
MAGP IV, and those who will be governed by it, i.e. the trade. Therefore it intervened pn several 
occasions at meetings of the Fisheries Council in the last quarter of 1995 to impress on the Ministers the 
importance they should attach to eliminating the Community fleet's overcapacity. 
On 12 March 1996 a teleconference was organized from Brussels with all the Commission's representation 
offices to make the press and the trade aware of the need to reduce fleet overcapacity. 
6.2 Preparatory work 
The Commission will have a number of preparatory documents, all in preparation for its proposal for the 
Council meeting in June 1996. It is on the basis of that proposal that the Council will lay down the policy 
guidelines for the MAGP IV. 
6.2.1 Reports from the Member States 
In accordance with the legal requirements of article 5 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, 
Member States should have submitted by 01.01.96 a report on implementation of their MAGP III 
and on preparation of the MAGP IV. The delays in producing these reports, of which the 
Commission is aware, mean that they will only be able to be used for an overall synthesis. These 
national reports will be analysed in the proposed regulation framework which the Commission will 
make to the June Council in order to establish the direction of MGP IV. 
6.2.2 The scientific report by the group of independent experts 
The group of independent experts met, as planned, four times between September 1995 and 
February 1996. The overall report by the group of experts and the synthesis by their president 
were delivered to the Fisheries ministers during the Council meeting of 22nd April 1996. 
You will find a résumé in Annex IV of the group of experts principal recommendations. The work 
of the group clearly shows a continuing deterioration in the stocks which dictates that steps need 
to be taken without delay. MGP IV will attempt to fix objectives for the reduction of capacities 
by fleet segment in relation to fish mortality objectives within each fishery. The fisheries will 
firstly have been put in the context of maritime region, species or group of species and gear types. 
The Commission is aware that for a certain number of stocks facing a critical situation and 
approaching the collapse of the biomass, some sensitive measures to reduce fishing effort in the 
short term will have to be proposed to the Council and adopted without concession. On the other 
hand, for a certain number of stocks for which this danger does not exist and where fish mortality 
is simply greater than optimal exploitation conditions in the economic plan, the Commission 
estimates that it's proposal and the Council's decision will be able to take into account social 
factors likely to have a bearing on the time limit for implementing the group of experts' 
recommendations. 
6.2.3 Socio-economic report following regional consultations 
With the support of national authorities, the Commission organized 32 regional consultations in 
those European regions most dependent on fishing as well as additional meetings with European 
organisations from the fisheries chain in order to gather information and ideas from the industry 
on fishing activity developments and on preparation of MAGP IV. The information and opinions 
received by the Commission have been carefully compiled in the form of a synthesised report 
which shows the positions of those involved in the chain with regard to the MGPs. 
A résumé of this report, which will be sent to the Council as was the independent experts report, 
is shown in annex V to this document; 
These consultations clearly illustrate that the fishermen do not dispute MGP as a tool for 
regulating fishing capacities, but would like to see this tool used in a more flexible manner and 
not exclusively of other means of reducing fishing effort where the stock situation permits it. 
The Commission will take into account the opinions of professionals in order to ensure the most 
flexible possible application of the Council policy/guidelines to national fleets. 
6.3 The two-tier decision-making system (Annex VI) 
This document is intended to bring about an exchange of views between those responsible for European 
fisheries on the context, objectives and general content of MAGP IV. The Commission services think this 
discussion will be very useful for preparing the draft Council decision to be adopted in June, in particular 
as regards the general approach to be taken under the various MAGP's IV. Although it is useful for 
developing ideas on the MAGP IV, this document does not legally bind the Commission. 
6.3.1 Council decision in June 1996 
The Council debate in June 1996 will determine the real extent of measures to reduce the 
overcapacity of the Community fleet. This debate results from its obligation set out in Article 11 
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92' determining the conditions for restructuring the sector. 
Any delay in adopting a Council decision laying down these measures would seriously impair the 
Commission's ability to adopt its own decisions by the end of 1996. 
The Commission will seek in it's proposal to the Council to reconcile the recommendations of 
the independent experts and the wishes expressed by the professionals in the sector in order that 
measures to reduce the overcapacity of the Community fleet should be implemented within a 
reasonable time-limit. The facility will exist within this proposal to distinguish those stocks on 
the edge of collapse from those which could temporarily support the current rates of exploitation. 
However, some measures must also be adopted for the latter. 
6.3.2 13 Commission decisions in November 1996 
Following on from the Council's decision, the Commission will organize bilateral meetings with 
the 13 Member States concerned to apply the Council's policies to the various fleets, in 
Commission decisions which will apply to each individual Member State. All 13 draft decisions 
will have to be submitted to the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture by 
November at the latest, and the drafts will be adopted by the end of the year. 
In contrast with the preceding phase of establishing MGP IV orientation where the uniqueness of 
the Council stage must be safeguarded, during this 2nd phase the Commission will take into 
account the particularities and specifics of situations highlighted within the framework of 
professional consultations. 
The plan attached shows the different phases of the Council/Commission decision making process 
leading to the adoption of MGP IV. 
7. Conclusion 
The present decline in fish stocks is confirmation of the inadequacy of previous multi-annual guidance 
programmes, and suggests that a new MGP IV should be adopted with a more detailed approach than in 
the past. Over-fishing is due to over-capacity in the Community fleet. The elimination of fleet over­
capacity is thus a powerful means to serve the essential objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy which 
are the continuity of fishing, maintaining profitable exploitation levels for the sector and the preservation 
of jobs. 
Council Regulation (EEC) N° 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system 
for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992). 
The Commission will bring in whatever steps are necessary to improve management machinery for the 
forthcoming programme, which will be adopted in such a way as to ensure openness and transparency, and 
fair treatment for the Member States, their fleets, and the different types of gear. The Commission proposal 
will ensure genuine adjustment of fishing effort, to take account of the effect of technical progress. To this 
end, a hew method of fixing objectives will be proposed, to enable capacity reduction measures to be 
linked to schemes for managing fishing effort. The MAGP IV will also need to consider further capacity 
reductions where necessary according to methods capable of taking into account the social aspects of 
restructuring. 
The Commission believes that the policy issue in the debate of June 1996, when the Council will have 
wide margins for manoeuvre, consists in the timing of the reductions in fishing effort called for in the 
scientific recommendations. It is appropriate in this respect to clearly distinguish the following; 
those stocks in very poor condition and even on the brink of biological collapse for which radical 
measures having an immediate effect should be adopted without delay 
those stocks which are over-exploited and badly exploited to which measures must be applied as 
soon as possible in order to improve their exploitation 
those slocks which do not pose any problem and for which it will be appropriate to follow their 
evolution in order to adapt fleet capacity and avoid allowing the situation to deteriorate 
The consensus to be reached should aim at striking a reasonable balance, over the period allowed, between 
the level of biological limitations along with the effects of technical progress on the one hand, and the 
socio-economic consequences in areas dependent on fisheries on the other. 
The Commission is concerned that it should make MGP IV acceptable to the fishermen and the populations 
of those areas dependent on fishing. It must be clear, however, that in adopting and implementing MGP 
IV the Member States and the Commission aim at a lasting balance between a fleet whose competitivity 
will have to be assured and the available resources.This is not to suggest, though, that this means the 
Commission is disinterested in job losses which, initially, could be linked to restructuring of the sector. On 
the contrary, restoring the stocks means that Community waters must produce, in time, superior riches to 
those produced today and thus new jobs. Businesses in the chain will thus also be able to generate more 
wealth. 
However, it must be made clear for all that, independently of the expected benefits of this exercise, the 
sector could continue to suffer an erosion of it's employment level linked to the modernisation of 
businesses obliged to continually adapt to the market, In this case, one cannot dismiss the theory of 
applying to coastal zones an ad hoc development policy which would in turn establish development policy 
and rural diversification. Safeguarding jobs must, effectively, remain a central concern. 
If the guidelines set in June do not hold out the hope of a sufficient reduction in Community fleet capacity 
between 1997 and 1999, further arrangements would need to be considered for later periods, when technical 
progress is likely to generate even more surplus capacity. In these conditions, it is to be feared that the 
Council will be called upon to take measures at regular intervals to control over-capacity in the Community 
fleet, and to adopt successive reductions over an unforeseeable period. 
The Commission will base it's June proposition as much on biological recommendations as on socio­
economic considerations. 
10 
Annex I 
Expression of the relationship between 
Resources - Fleet - Structural Measures 
Management of the "OUTPUTS" 
catches (TACs, Quotas) 
Management of the "INPUTS" 
"Fishing elfort" arrangements 
Fishing effort = Capacity x Activity 
41 
Annex II 
Extreme examples of the implementation of MGP IV 
The simplest case: Capacity approach for one segment and one fishery 
Link 
A reduction of 20% of the fishing effort in the cod fishery must correspond to a 
reduction of 20% of the capacity of the trawler segment 
The complex case: Approach for one segment and several fisheries 
(First stage: Fixing in MGP IV of reductions in capacity corresponding to the fishing 
effort reductions on the most sensitive stock (capacity approach) 
Link 
Second stage (optional): connection between structural measures 
and arrangements for management of fishing effort (mixed approach) 
Revision of MGP IV objectives Fishing effort arrangements 
"The reduction of 12% of capacity was calculated taking into account the division 
between the 2 stocks of the fishing activities of the vessels in the segment 
1l 
Annex III 
Social and economic impact of measures for reducing the 
overcapacity of the Community fleet. 
The foreseeable socio-economic trends 
Social impact (employment) Economic impact 
Upstream At sea Down 
stream / "V" 
Profitability of 
fishing enterprises ^ 
Competitiveness of 
European products 
Realisation of 
objectives 
<!3 
ANNEX IV: 
Principal recommendations of the independent experts report 
1. General evolution of fish stocks 
The general trend expressed by the experts is clear; those fish stocks fished by 
Community vessels are over-exploited and significant reductions are required in order to 
remedy the situation. 
In all the zones analysed, a large proportion of stocks is exploited at a higher fish 
mortality level, and sometimes considerably higher, than the limit for a sustainable 
level.The report concludes that there is an urgent necessity to reduce fishing effort applied 
to these stocks immediately. 
As for those stocks which could, in principle, sustain the current levels of exploitation, 
the report notes that large exploitation gains would be made if measures to reduce fishing 
effort were similarly applied. 
2. Quantifying measures to reduce fishing effort 
Taking into account certain imprécisions in relation to the available statistics on stocks, 
the report advises an evolving approach which would consist of aiming at reductions in 
effort and periodically analysing the effect; 
For those stocks in greatest danger, the report considers that a mortality reduction by 
fishing of less than 20% would be insufficient, in the sense that it would only have an 
insignificant effect on restoring the fish population. For those same stocks, reductions 
greater than 40% could not be calculated precisely. 
3. Review of stocks and reference fishing mortality 
3.1CoastaI resources. The lack of available information and the wide variety of 
circumstances militates in favour of adopting technical measures and spatial and temporal 
regulation of fishing activities. 
</y 
3.2 Offshore resources 
Baltic Sea 
Stocks 
Cod 
Herring+Sprat 
Salmon Minimum reduction 
in F (%) required 
> -40 
closing of the fishery Critical stock 
Cod 25-32 
All wild salmon stocks (18) in 
the Sweden and Finland Comment 
Neither growth nor sustainability 
arguments for an effort reduction 
The advised closure of the 
fishery is with the objective to 
save the wild salmon stocks 
Kattegat-Skagerrak (Div. Ilia), North 
Sea (Div. IV), The eastern Channel 
(Div. Vlld) and West of Scotland 
(Div. VI) 
Fisheries 
Roundfish(Cod, Haddock, 
Whiting, Saithe) 
+ Anglerfish + Megrim 
Nephrops 
Flatfishes (Plaice + Sole) 
Industrial species (sand eel + 
Norway Pout+ Sprat) 
Pelagics (Herring+Mackerel) 
Shrimp 
Deep water species Minimum reduction 
in F (%) required 
>-40 
-33 
> -40 Critical stock 
Cod IV 
Haddock IV 
Saithe IV 
Cod Via 
Haddock Via 
Whiting Via 
Plaice IV 
Sole IV 
Herring IV 
Mackerel 
NK Comment 
• 
Conventionalbiologicalreference 
points do not provide a basis for 
changing the present exploitation 
level 
-5 % based on growth utilisation 
No assessment available 
^5" 
Southern Shelf (Div VII except Vlld 
(the eastern Channel), VIIIa,b) 
Fisheries 
Northern Hake+Anglerfish+ 
Megrim+Nephrops 
Flatfishes 
Roundfish (Gadoids) 
Small pelagics 
Deep water species Minimum reduction 
in F (%) required 
-17 
> -40 
-26 
>-40 Critical stock 
Northern Hake 
Sole Vila 
Sole Vllf.g 
Plaice VIIg 
Cod Vila 
Cod f,g,h 
Herring Vllg 
NK Comments 
No assessment available 
Off Portugal and Spain (Div VIHc + 
IXa) 
Fisheries 
Demersals (Southern 
Hake+Anglerfish+ Megrim+ 
Horse mackerel +Blue 
whiting) 
Small pelagics (Sardines + 
Anchovy) 
Sh rim p+Nephrops+Deep 
waters species Minimum reduction 
in F required (% ) 
-21 
-33 
-Critical stock 
Southern Hake 
Sardine Comment 
Nephrops (Males) overexploited 
Mediterranean 
Fisheries 
Small Pelagics (sardines and 
Anchovy) 
Demersals Shallow water 
(Red mullet) 
Demersals Deeper water 
(Hake) Minimum reduction 
in F required (%) 
>-40 
>-40 Critical stock 
Red mullet 
Hake Comment 
Conventionalbiologicalreference 
points do not provide a basis for 
changing the present exploitation 
level 
Red mullet appear to be 
overexploited nearly everywhere 
on the continental slope 
Hake appear to be overexploited 
nearly everywhere on the 
continental slope 
Resources in International Waters 
4(, 
Fisheries 
Oceanic Redfish 
Blue Whiting 
Atlanto-scandic Herring Minimum reduction 
in F required (%) Critical stock Comment 
No analytical assessment 
available. The stock is at present 
considered to be within safe 
biological limits 
No assessment. Available data 
suggest that there are no 
immediate concern about this 
stock. 
Presently very large resource 
available; however EU share 
uncertain 
Fisheries 
Greenland halibut in SA 2 + 
3. 
Cod and Redfish on Flemish 
Cap 
Shrimp on Flemish Cap Minimum reduction 
in F required (% ) 
NK 
>-40 Critical stock 
Cod on Flemish Cap Comment 
Fishing mortality is considered 
above sustainable levels. Current 
TAC advice implies af 50 % 
reduction of 1994 fishing 
mortality 
No assessment is available 
y? 
Annex V 
Synthesis of professional contributions during 
the regional consultations. 
The regional consultations allowed certain facts to be stated and professional requests made which should 
be taken into account in the procedures arid contents of MGP IV. These consultations were organised in 
such a way as to allow the fishermen and other trades of the chain and the local collectives to express 
themselves on conditions for implementing MGP in the general context of the evolution of the sector. To 
this end, the debate was organised into two parts; the first on the evolution of fishing activities and the 
other on implementing MGPs. 
1. THE EVOLUTION OF FISHING ACTIVITIES 
1.1 Fishing activities seen today 
The evolution of such activities in those zones dependent on fishing, such as they appear in certain 
statistics that are available, express a constant and preoccupying fall in direct employment, notably in sea 
fisheries. The fleet and it's activities upstream are the worst affected. Between 90 and 95 Brittany 
effectively lost 40% of its offshore fleet in a global loss of 24% of its fisheries jobs over the same period. 
Ongoing studies on the restructuring of the Spanish fleet operating in international waters or under fishing 
agreements suggest reductions of a similar size over a short period. 
The available statistics show a strong tendency towards a deterioration of the level of fishing jobs which 
is classically seen in the other primary sectors of the economy, (agriculture, forestry). The only regions 
which appear able to check this fall in direct employment are those bordering British waters. The best 
stocked in the Community and capable of benefiting from a certain de-localisation of fishing activities tied 
to the implementation of the single market. But even these regions have experienced difficulties in 
getting regular landings from newcomers, (quota-hoppers). 
1.2 Upstream fishing activities 
They are totally perturbed by the reduction in fishing activities Shipyards have experienced the closing of 
sites and concentration of activities as the more competitive parts of the single market took advantage. 
Some shipyards preserve a reputation and a "know-how" which makes them essential and justifies their 
claims to export (tropical-tuna segment). The aid from fleet modernisation programmes (700 million ECU 
during the period 1994/99) will help in supporting the shipyards activities but the most recent subsidy 
ceilings for construction in Regulation 3699/93 provoke the clientele into considering offers from outside 
the Union. 
The supplies businesses suffer directly from reduced numbers of vessels and jobs, as well as the use of 
materials over lengthening periods of time, as an effect of the crisis. 
1.3 Downstream fishing activities 
They have clearly suffered the effects of lack of resources and thus the dwindling of contributions under 
auction, to the dealing rooms and the processing industry .However, it's a long time ago that this latter 
sector, for which permanent transformation came about several decades ago, as per the agro-food sector, 
obtains supplies on the international market and no longer counted on its only productive national sector. 
Downstream they know about job losses, and in the short term MGP IV could aggravate this tendency; It 
could be that after having expanded the auctions must look at reconversion by specialisation or even to the 
attractions they can offer to visiting fleets. Business activities could be preserved in the ports which have 
taken a chance on diversifying into different species (deep sea fish ) or contributions (importations). 
1.4 Solutions put forward by the professionals 
The professionals have sometimes sought responsibility for over-exploitation of resources in factors 
which, while they exonerate fishing effort management regimes , contribute to a vessels overall turnover. 
Low prices for fish were denounced and provoked demands for a revision of the Common fisheries 
Policy The effects of terrestrial pollution, notably on coastal juvenile stocks were judged responsible for 
the state of certain stocks and have been cited as a demobilising factor in the profession, in the same way 
as the unfair competition exercised by certain "foreign" fleets operating in International waters with inferior 
constraints to those of community fishermen, or by certain "false amateurs" who, exempt from the burdens 
of social and fiscal charges, show themselves to be serious competitors and professionals. 
The anxiety of professionals faced with the most important reduction in fishing activities in the fishing 
zones expresses itself in a conservative stance (the small fleet syndrome, training of young fishermen to 
save the profession),and a reluctance to diversify ( you will never turn fishermen into managers of crêperies 
or pizzerias). Beyond these emotional demonstrations, the fisherman himself recognises a real collective 
responsibility which, however, he has enormous trouble in assuming at the level of his own personal 
behaviour unless driven by economic arguments,(increasing activity to compensate for scarcity of resources 
and/or falling prices). The notion of overfishing remains , however, generally the fault of others. 
Putting forward the attraction of a port for foreign vessels, initiatives to group together activities, grouping 
landings, and relocating closely linked activities from fishing areas are rarely brought about spontaneously 
and are sometimes felt to be provocative. Diversification into other sectors is generally considered 
carefully, but the profession thinks that it will only have a slight effect given the few alternatives to jobs 
lost in those regions dependent on fishing. Among the proposed solutions one will recall that they are 
aimed at preserving trade and existing ports by discovering new fisheries financed by countryside 
exploration aid. 
For the downstream sector, the idea that restoring stocks will infer, in the mid or long-term, new jobs in 
the chain is judged as doubtful by those in the profession. Beyond the social effects tied to restructuring, 
the operations of the profession relative to the positive effects of successful restructuring of network 
business accounts and the competitivity of European products are not manifestly central to their thoughts. 
During these consultations on the evolution of the fishing activities of the ZDP, the profession revealed 
the nature of its everyday preoccupations. The sector as a whole suggested that it was living in a 
precarious and difficult situation justifying, in it's eyes whilst waiting for the stocks or the market to 
recover, a better accountability of its difficulties, either by a modification of the regulations (market, access 
to resources) and financial aid for new production investment or research of new resources. 
2. MULTI-ANNUAL GUIDANCE PROGRAMMES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. 
2.1 Understanding of the current regime 
2.1.1 The regulatory context of the PCP: controls and sanctions 
During these consultations, the relative aspects of the proliferation of regulatory texts relative to the PCP, 
their controls and sanctions foreseen for their non -respect had been at the centre of almost all the debates. 
If some professionals had estimated that the MGPs were useless, in the sense that they have no effect on 
the sector, the majority of them recognised that, at the community level,a tool for following and orienting 
fleet capacities is indispensable. Many consider however that they have sufficiently reduced the fleet and 
that it will be difficult to take it further; 
<\°l 
The profession confirmed that in these conditions it was in favour of a strict application of existing 
regulations which seemed, to them, quite sufficient. They demand a strengthening of controls without 
which the PCP cannot work. They insist that the MGP should be planned as transparently as possible and 
apply to all equally. For those countries not respecting the MGPs they suggest a reduction of quotas and 
stopping investment aid; 
2.1.2. MGP objectives 
Destruction of vessels is judged to be the most certain means of eliminating community fleet 
overcapacities, so long as those leaving are not compensated for by new arrivals (management of 
entries/departures from the fleet by licensing regimes) and the fleet does not age. Aids to exportation and 
the formation of joint ventures are sometimes considered as factors aggravating competition in fisheries. 
2.1.3 Parameters for measuring MGP objectives 
The framing of parameters for power, and sometimes tonnage, has been criticised as a factor in preventing 
fleet modernisation for reasons of navigational security and respect for hygiene conditions or increasing 
the value of production on board. The United Kingdom would prefer a cocktail of parameters mixing power 
and tonnage (Vessel capacity units). 
Many professionals have criticised the introduction into the MGP of objectives expressed in fishing effort 
as opening the door for measures to reduce fishing activities in a framework which ought to remain 
structural. The activity reductions are not considered as measures with a definite effect, and present control 
difficulties. 
Other professionals are, on the contrary, attached to this new approach which is the only one which allows 
polyvalent fleets to be dealt with. Certain producers organisations representatives have suggested that an 
improvement in steering the market relies on a better management of the vessels activities and that this 
management could be taken into account in MGP. 
2.2 EXPLORING NEW AVENUES 
2.2.1 Selective gears 
The majority of professionals think that resorting to more selective fishing gears is desirable and request 
financial aid in order to popularise their use. They also request that their effects on fishing effort should 
be accounted for in MGP. 
2.X2 Stock recovery period 
The profession is in favour of stock recovery periods and request that their effects should be accounted for 
in MGP and that their implementation should be financially compensated by IFOP. 
2.3 SPECIFIC POINTS ABOUT MGP IV 
2.3.1 Accounting for technical progress 
Few professionals recognise any effect. The Commission's estimation of 2% annually has only been shared 
by Denmark, those others concerned estimating it to be at a level rarely higher and often nil. 
w 
2.3.2 Base line 
Few comments on this point. It seems to be admitted that fixing objectives for MGP IV must be based 
upon previous objectives. 
2.3.3. 
Segmentation 
The profession showed that it understood the parameters and understood the constraints linked to a more 
or less fine approach to segmentation. These witnesses expressed a relative satisfaction with the current 
situation even though some wished for a finer approach and above all an exemption from penalties for 
those placed in segments which fulfil the programme objectives. 
2.3.4. Fixed gears 
The profession was largely in favour of taking account of fixed gears but was divided over the 
opportuneness of doing so. 
2.4 Accompanying measures 
2.4.1 Subsidies for temporarily and finally stopping fishing. 
The fall in the level of subsidies with the age of vessels ( notably those which have been modernised) has 
been criticised despite the recent modification to regulation 3699/92. The subsidies for temporarily stopping 
are considered as indispensable but too difficult to access. 
2.4.2 Subsidies for leaving fishing and pre-retirement 
These recent measures did not give cause for much comment. They seem to have been well received, even 
if they are often seen as a first step in the right direction; 
ai 
cfW«*t 3ZL 
\ 
Illustration of the decision-making process relating to the 
adoption of MGP IV. 
December 95 to 
March 96 Member state reports 
Preparatory reports • Socio-economic report 
Independent experts' report 
Communication from the Commission to the Council 
10 June 1996 Council Decision fixing the guidelines for 
restructuring the Sector 
^. 
Bilateral meetings Commission / Member states to translate the 
guidelines fixed by the Council to a national framework 
November -
December 1996 r * r • _1_ ^*_ ^_^ ré^ 
\ J V V ) \ 
13 Commission Decisions adopting 
MGP IV 
\ s. 
& 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 203 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-214-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-03879-2 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
is