7. 3.77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 56/73 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for a Council  Regulation  establishing  a Community  system 
for the conservation  and  management  of fishery  resources 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 255  of 28 October  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 19 October  1976,  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 
144th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 15 and  16 December  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  .the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Articles  47 and  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for  an opinion  made 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
19 October  1976, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
26 October  1976  instructing  the  Section  for  Agri-
culture  to prepare  the  Committee's  work  on  the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to its previous  work  on the matter  and, 
in particular,  its opinion  of 26 March  1969  on the 
proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on the  adoption 
of a common  structural  policy  for  the  fishing  in-
dustry  (1),  of 27 June  1974  on the  proposal  for  a 
Council  Regulation  laying  down  conditions  for 
granting  national  aid  under  the  common  structural 
policy  for seafishing  (2), and  of 26 May  1976  on the 
proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on a programme 
for restructuring  the  non-industrial  inshore  fishing 
industry  (3), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by the  rap-
porteur,  Miss  Mackie, 
C) OJ No C 76, 17. 6. 1969. 
(*) OJ No C 116,  30. 9. 1974. 
(3) OJ  No C 197,  23. 8. 1976. Having  regard  to opinions  issued  by the Section  for 
Agriculture  at its meeting  held  on 2 December  1976, 
Having  regard  to the proceedings  of its 144th  plenary 
session  held  on 15 and  16 December  1976  (meeting 
of 15 December  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  a large  majority  and four  votes  against: 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  very  much 
regrets  that  it has  not  been  consulted  at an earlier 
stage,  and  in particular  on other  proposals  and  com-
municatons  closely  linked  to this  one,  which  have 
been  made  during  1976.  Coupled  with  the extremely 
short  time  available  for the Committee  to prepare  an 
opinion  on the  draft  Regulation  now  referred  to it, 
this incomplete  consultation  makes  the  work  of the 
Committee  very  difficult  and  is bound  to mean  that 
the opinion  of the Section  is prepared  less  thoroughly 
than it should  be. 
However,  in accordance  with  the views  of the Econ-
omic  and  Social  Committee,  (set  out in its opinion  on 
the proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on a pro-
gramme  for  restructuring  the  non-industrial  inshore 
fishing  industry  (26 May  1976),  that  the Community's 
aim must  be the  earliest  possible  introduction  of a 
complete  common  fisheries  policy,  the  Committee 
approves  the  proposal  subject  to the  general  and 
specific  comments  set out below. 
No C 56/74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 7. 3. 77 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  Commission's  proposal  is linked  with  the 
decisions  of the  Council  of Ministers  of 30 October 
1976  which  were  taken  in the context  of the extension 
by certain  Member  States  of their  fishing  limits  along 
the North  Sea  and  North  Atlantic  coastlines  to 200 
miles. 
1.2. The  Committee  agrees  that  the  principles  of the 
policy  proposed  in this  Regulation  are  right,  and  that 
Community  action  is needed. respect  of quality  and  public  health,  as well  as the 
social  and  economic  aspects  of the  situation,  and 
asks the Commission  to act accordingly. 
1.7. The  Committee  understands  and  accepts  the 
need  for  a strong  conservation  policy  in order  to 
prevent  further  reductions  in  stocks  of  certain 
important  species.  The  Commission's  proposals  have 
been  put  forward  in the  light  of this  need,  and  they 
make  provision  for  special  recognition,  by means  of 
a Community  reserve,  of the  vital  needs  of fishermen 
in Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  where  the 
Regulation  will  have  the  first  important  practical 
effects,  in the initial  period  of its application. 
1.3. The  Committee  notes  that  the  Regulation  ap-
plies  to all areas  within  the  jurisdiction  of Member 
States  immediately,  as it becomes  possible  to apply 
each  article.  It will  therefore,  for  example,  have  an 
immediate  practical  effect  in all Member  States  so 
far as the  proposals  affecting  the  fishing  fleets  arc 
concerned,  wherever  they  fish. 
1.4. The  proposals  concerning  conservation  and  the 
application  of quotas  also  apply  immediately  to the 
waters  under  the  jurisdiction  of all Member  States, 
even  those  with  unchanged  fishing  limits.  However, 
no significant  practical  effects  can  be expected  in 
these  States  until  they  extend  their  jurisdiction  beyond 
the present  limits. 
1.5. The  special  problems  of the  fishing  industry 
need  particular  consideration  in all Member  States 
at the time  when  the  extension  of the relevant  fishing 
limits  makes  it possible  to consider  the  practical 
effect  of the  implementation  of the  whole  of this 
Regulation  in the  area  concerned.  The  Committee 
therefore  reserves  the  right  to return  to this  subject 
at a later  date. 
1.6. The  question  of conservation  and  the  need  to 
build  up fish  stocks  cannot  be considered  without 
recognizing  the  importance  of the  ecological  and  en-
vironmental  aspects  of the  problem.  The  need  to 
conserve  the  resources  of the  sea  must  take  account 
of quality  as well  as quantity.  Some  zones  in which 
fishing  traditionally  took  place  are no longer  capable 
of supporting  fish  because  of damage  caused  by 
pollution.  The  Committee  emphasizes  the importance 
of a fully  balanced  approach  which  will  take  account 
of environmental  needs  and  consumer  requirements  in 1.8. However,  the establishment  of a policy  for con-
servation,  based  on quotas  and  enforced  by a system 
of permits  for  vessels  and  their  skippers  represents  a 
radical  change  in the pattern  of life  of all the fishing 
communities.  It is important  for  the  success  of the 
policy  that  the  people  who  will  be directly  affected 
are given  more  information  and  more  opportunity  to 
express  their  views  about  the  implementation  of the 
policy  at a local  level.  Moreover,  the policy  will  have 
to be  accompanied  by  Community  measures 
designed  to:  (a)  prevent  loss  of jobs;  (b)  promote 
retraining;  (c) provide  social  protection  for  affected 
workers.  Member  States  should  be required  to ensure 
that this  happens.  The  Regulation  contains  broad 
principles  which  can  be accepted,  but  there  will  be 
opposition  and  failure  to implement  it effectively  if 
people  believe  that  problems  which  they  see as prac-
tical  realities  are to be ignored  at the European  level, 
although  they  are  of overwhelming  importance  to 
those  working  in the industry. 
1.9. Specific  problems  of this  kind  include  high 
structural  unemployment;  the  practical  application  of 
a quota  system  such  as is proposed,  especially  in view 
of the movement  of fish  from  area  to area;  the inter-
pretation  and  establishment  of 'fishing  performance 
over  a reference  period'  which  is to be the  basis  of 
the quotas;  the  degree  of reliability  of the  scientific 
forecasts  on which  the  permitted  annual  overall  catch 
will be based;  the  relationship  between  the  quota 
system  and  the  proposed  zones  for  coastal  fishing; 
and the  terms  on  which  fishing  agreements  with 
third  countries  are re-negotiated. 
1.10.  It is important  to note  that  this  is a basic 
Regulation,  which  is to be followed  iby further,  more 
detailed  Regulations,  in which  some  of the  problems 
which  appear  have  been  ignored  at this  stage  may  be 
dealt  with. 
7. 3.77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 56/75 
1.11.  The  success  of a Community  programme  for 
the conservation  and  management  of fish  stocks  im-
plies  careful  supervision,  permanent  controls  and,  if 
necessary,  sanctions.  The  Commission  proposal  is 
weak  here  in that  it simply  leaves  these  tasks  entirely 
to the  Member  States.  The  proposed  systems  of con-
trol ought  to be supervised  carefully  — and  if necess-
ary supplemented  and  given  financial  backing  — at 
Community  level.  For,  if the  relevant  laws  and 
regulations  are  not  fully  respected  and  enforced,  the 
whole  policy  will  be placed  in jeopardy. significance.  Accordingly,  the  Committee  proposes 
the following  amendment  to the  first  subparagraph 
of Article  4 (2): 
'2. For  each  of the  main  species  a Community 
reserve  shall  be  established,  the  amount  of 
which  shall  be ascertained  by reference  to the 
vital  needs  of the  local  fishing  population  who 
are directly  affected  by the  extension  of fishing 
limits,  and  to the size  of the  reduction  in catch 
compared  with  previous  activity.' 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  2 
The Committee  notes  that  the  establishment  of the 
'zones'  referred  to in Article  2.2 (a) may  be used,  for 
example,  to prohibit  the use  of vessels  of certain  sizes 
or types,  in the  whole  Community.  The  Committee 
considers  that  the  paragraph  would  be clearer  if it 
was reworded  as follows: 
'(a) the  prohibition  or restriction  of fishing  to 
certain  periods,  certain  types  of vessels,  or 
certain  fishing  tackle,  either  in defined  areas 
or in all Community  waters;' 
2.2. Article  4 
2.2.1.  In view  of the  need  to recognize  the vital  needs 
of fishing  communities  in different  areas  of the Com-
munity  as they  become  particularly  affected  by the 
provisions  of the  Regulation  and  the  extension  of 
fishing  limits,  the  Committee  wishes  to emphasize 
that the  provisions  of Article  4 (2)  are  capable  of 
applying  to other  regions  where  there  are  particular 
difficulties  in addition  to  those  mentioned  in a 
manner  appropriate  to the  area.  It should  be made 
clearer  that  the  conditions  which  would  need  to be 
established  relate  to matters  which  are  not  specific  to 
the United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  but  could  arise 
elsewhere.  Namely,  the  Council  will  have  powers  to 
fix a Community  reserve  each  year  for  any  major 
species  of fish,  in accordance  with  the  size  of the 
reduction  in catch  compared  with  previous  activity, 
and will  be able  to allocate  this  reserve  in a manner 
which  gives  priority  to the  fishermen  who  have  tra-
ditionally  fished  the stocks  of the  species  concerned. 
The Committee  considers  that  the  depressed  coastal 
fisheries  should  not  be  inhibited  from  developing 
their  potential  for  employment  in fishing  and  inshore 
based  services;  this  is especially  the  case  for  those 
areas  where  fishing  is an activity  of key  economic 2.2.2.  The  Committee  proposes  that  Article  4 (2), 
second  paragraph,  should  read  as follows: 
'In allocating  this  reserve  priority  shall  be given 
to the  local  fishermen  referred  to in the  previous 
subparagraph  who  have  traditionally  fished  the 
stocks  of the species  concerned.' 
2.2.3.  The  Committee  points  out  the  importance  of 
the locality  in which  fish  of certain  species  may  be 
expected  to be  caught.  A total  allowable  catch 
established  at a Community  level  may  result  in 
restrictions  which  it is impossible  to apply  if the 
species  concerned  is available  in different  areas  some 
of which  are  traditionally  fished  by boat  from  dif-
ferent  Member  States.  It will  be necessary  for  the 
Council  to identify  what  proportion  of a national 
quota  can  be obtained  from  the  various  fish  stocks 
existing,  e. g., from  the  Baltic  or the  North  Sea.  It 
will also  be necessary  for there  to be some  flexibility 
in cases  where  scientific  forecasts  prove  to be inac-
curate  and  fish  are  found  to have  moved  into  un-
expected  areas.  Similarly,  as the  policy  becomes 
effective  and  is enforced  by Member  States  the results 
should  be fully  taken  into  account  in establishing 
quotas  for subsequent  years. 
It is therefore  proposed  that  the  following  addition 
should  be made  to Article  4 (3): 
'In making  their  decisions  on  this  matter  the 
Council  shall  take  account  of the following,  among 
other  points: 
— the  need  to determine  so far  as is practicable 
the proportion  of their  overall  catch  which  the 
Member  States  may  seek  from  specific  fishing 
areas  or stocks, 
— the  need  to respond  to the actual  circumstances 
when  these  differ  substantially  from  the  fore-
casts,  without  allowing  the  principles  of the 
Community  conservation  policy  to  be 
weakened, 
No C 56/76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 7. 3. 77 
— the  need  to reflect  the  experience  gained  in 
previous  years  of the  effect  of enforcement  of 
the Community  policy  by the Member  States.' 
2.3. Article  4 (4) 
It is apparently  the  case  that  there  is at present  an 
insufficient  flow  of information  to the  Community 
from  the Member  States  for proper  decisions  to be 
taken.  It is hoped  that  the  'general  rules  for  im-
plementation'  of Article  4 will  include  adequate  pro-
vision  for up-to-date  information  to be provided. 
2.4. Article  S 
The Committee  notes  that  the  possibility  of ex-
changing  quotas,  in the way  foreseen  in Article  5 (1) 
but with  third  countries,  is not  excluded  and  hopes 
that the detailed  rules  to be drawn  up under  Section 
5 (2) will  provide  for this  possibility. 
2.5. Article  6 
The Committee  notes  that  the provision  of a coastal 
fishing  limit  of 12 miles  is unlikely  to prove  sufficient 
in itself  to protect  either  the  stocks  of fish,  their 
breeding  grounds,  or the  existing  way  of life  of the 
small  communities  in all Member  States  who  depend 
upon  inshore  fishing.  It must  be repeated  that  not 
enough  has  been  done  to explain  to the  people 
affected  that  there  will  be powers  to control  fishing 
outside  these  limits  (notably  under  Article  2), and  it 
is even  more  important  to show  that  there  is an in-
tention  to use  these  powers  in an acceptable  and 
effective  way,  after  proper  consultation  with  rep-
resentatives  of the fishing  communities  concerned. 
2.6. Article  8 
Some  fishing  communities  would  #ke  to continue 
having  exclusive  access  to their  traditional,  local 
fishing  areas.  This,  however,  would  make  implemen-
tation  of common  fisheries  policy  more  difficult.  In 
order  to reassure  and  convince  people  who  are afraid that the  spirit  of,  and  principles  underlying  the 
Regulations  would  not  be carried  over,  the  Com-
mission  will  have  to work  out  and  put  into  action 
a reliable,  credible  system  of controls  and  sanctions. 
2.7. Article  12 
These  proposals  are  analogous  to the  proposal  for 
the non-industrial  inshore  fishing  industry  on which 
the Economic  and  Social  Committee  expressed  an 
opinion  on 26 May  1976. 
It is compatible  with  the  view  expressed  in that 
opinion  that  the  Commission  should  draw  up 
proposals  of this  kind  relating  to deep-sea  'fishing 
as soon  as possible. 
The Committee  notes  that  there  may  be  certain 
technical  difficulties  encountered  with  the temporary 
laying  up of boats  as envisaged  in Article  12 (b). 
2.8. Article  14 
The Committee  holds  the  view  that  the  present 
system  of management  committees  and  consultative 
committees  in the  various  sectors  is unnecessarily 
complicated. 
The Committee  'believes  chat  it would  be preferable 
to have  one  responsible  management  committee 
which  could  operate  through  various  sub-committees 
but which  could  have  the advantage  of responsibility 
for management  and  consultation  in all these  areas, 
and could  therefore  act in a consistent  way  with  full 
knowledge  of all the different  points  of view. 
Done  at Brussels,  16 December  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
7. 3. 77 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 56/77 
ANNEX 
to the  opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Paragraph  1.8. 
Replace  the paragraph  as follows: 
'1.8. However,  the establishment  of a policy  for conservation  based  on quotas  and  enforced 
by a system  of permits  for vessels  and  their  skippers  represents  a radical  change  in the pattern 
of life  of all the fishing  communities  and  would  prevent  some  local  fisheries  from  developing 
their  potential  with  a consequential  loss  in jobs  in fishing  and in onshore  services. 
It is important  for the success  of the policy  that  the people  who  will  be directly  affected  are 
given  more  information  and  more  opportunity  to express  their  views  about  the  implemen-
tation  of the policy  at a local  level.  Moreover,  the policy  will  have  to accompanied  by Com-
munity  measures  designed  to: (a) assist  in the development  of depressed  local  fisheries  where 
there  are prospects  for new  jobs  in fishing  and  in onshore  services;  (b) prevent  loss  in jobs; 
(c) promote  retraining;  (d) provide  social  protection  for  affected  workers.  The  Community 
and Member  States  should  guarantee  such  protection.  The  Regulation  contains  some  broad 
principles  in relation  to conservation  which  can  be accepted  but  there  will  be opposition  to 
it . . . if people  believe  that  problems  which  they  see as practical  realities  are to be ignored 
at the  European  level,  although  they  are  of vital  importance  to those  working  in the 
industry.' 
Voting 
For : 2, against:  40, abstentions  : 23. 
Insert  a new  paragraph  2.1.1  as follows: 
"2.1.1.  The  Committee  proposes  to insert  a new  subparagraph  (e) as follows: 
'(e) the  restriction  of fishing,  in particular  to local  fisherman'." 
Voting 
For : 12, against:  19, abstentions  : 13. 
Insert  a new  paragraph  2.2.0  as follows: 
"2.2.0.  The  Committee  proposes  to amend  paragraph  1 of Article  4 by the insertion,  at the 
end of the paragraph,  of the following  words: 
'from  waters  outside  the coastal  waters  of Member  States'." 
Voting 
For : 11, against:  28, abstentions  : 24. 
The last  sentence  of paragraph  2.2.1  should  be amended  as follows: 
"Accordingly,  the Committee  proposes  the following  amendment  to Article  4 (2): 
'4 (2).  For  each  of the main  species  a Community  reserve  should  be established,  the amount 
of which  shall  be determined  by reference  to the vital  needs  of fishermen  in Ireland  and 
the northern  regions  of the United  Kingdom'," 
No C 56/78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 7. 3. 77 
Voting 
For : 8, against:  39, abstentions  : 17. 
Insert  a new  paragraph  2.2.1  (3) to read  as follows: 
"The  Committee  proposes  that  Article  4 (2), third  paragraph  should  read  as follows: 
'Each  year  for the species  concerned  the Council  shall  fix and  apportion  the amount  of the 
Community  reserve,  but  the  apportionment  shall  not  be made  in a manner  which  would 
authorize  non-Member  States  to fish  in waters  under  the sovereignty  or within  the  juris-
diction  of Member  States'." 
Voting 
For : 6, against:  28, abstentions  : 19. 
Insert  a new  paragraph  2.3.2  as follows: 
"The  Committee  proposes  the substitution  of the  following  words  for the first  sentence  of 
Article  4 (5): 
'This  Article  shall  apply  until  31 December  1977,  but may  be extended  at yearly  intervals 
up to 31 December  1979'." 
Voting 
For: 9, against:  42, abstentions:  8. 
Insert  a new  paragraph  2.5.1.  as follows: 
"Article  6 (1) should  be amended  by the  insertion  of the  following  subparagraph  as 6.1.2: 
'Notwithstanding  Article  2 of Regulation  (EEC)  No  101/76  and  without  prejudice  to the 
application  of Articles  100  and  101  of the  Act  of Accession,  the  Member  States  arc 
authorized  to restrict  fishing  in waters  under  their  sovereignty  or jurisdiction  situation 
within  a limit  of FIFTY  nautical  miles,  calculated  from  the base  lines  of the coastal  Member 
State,  to vessels  which  fish  traditionally  in those  waters  and  which  operate  from  ports  in 
the local  coastal  area'." 
Voting 
For: 11, against:  26, abstentions:  25. 
The following  passage  in the  Section  opinion  was  modified  as the  result  of an amendment 
accepted  during  the  discussions,  (voting:  with  a large  majority,  two  votes  against  and  four 
abstentions) 
2.6. Article  8 — second  sentence: 
This,  however,  is not possible  if there  is to be a common  fisheries  policy.'