Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'the regional consequences of the Common Fisheries Policy`(96/C 129/01)

On 19 July 1995, the Committee of the Regions, acting under the first paragraph of Rule 10 of its Rules of Procedures and in accordance with Article 198c of the EU Treaty, decided to draw up an Own-initiative Opinion on the above-mentioned subject.

Commission 2 for Spatial Planning, Agriculture, Hunting, Fisheries, Forestry, Marine Environment and Upland Areas is responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject. The Rapporteur is Mr Simon Day.

At its 11th Plenary Session on 17 and 18 January 1996 (meeting of 18 January), the Committee of the Regions adopted the following Opinion.

1. Introduction

Crisis in the Community's fishing industry

1.1. According to a communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, the Community's fishing industry is in crisis (). The causes of this crisis are thought to be many, including adverse changes in the general economic environment. However, serious problems internal and specific to the fishing industry have been identified as explanatory variables, including excess capacity, overfishing, operating losses and unsuitable marketing structures and channels.

1.2. In the Commission's view, the crisis is seen as essentially structural in origin but will only be overcome by a package of coordinated measures with action taken at the Community level and at the level of national governments and industry.

1.3. At the Community level measures for implementation focus on resource conservation and control, markets and structures.

1.4. So far as structural measures are concerned, Community financing is available for the adaptation of structures in fisheries [Objective 5(a)] under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the fisheries sector is also eligible for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) in the regions covered by Objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) for the implementation of measures which will assist in economic diversification (). In addition, under the PESCA Community Initiative targeted assistance is now available to assist the industry to successfully respond to changes and to diversify through the development of job-creating activities (). Finally, an extension of accompanying socio-economic measures has been proposed by the Commission, including part-financing of national early-retirement schemes for fishermen, granting of individual compensatory payments to fishermen and aid for the establishment of bad weather unemployment funds and for financial compensation as a result of sharp fluctuations in the market value of products ().

1.5. It is in this context where it has been stated that the overcapacity of the fishing fleet is incompatible with the declining resources and where this incompatibility between capacity and resource necessitates the diversification of the fisheries sector and the re-employment of fishermen that this Opinion is given. Furthermore, within this context it is appropriate and it has been requested that an Opinion be given on the proposed socio-economic measures to accompany restructuring measures in the fisheries sector ().

2. General comments

The Common Fisheries Policy

2.1. Given that fish do not always respect fixed boundaries, particularly those created by forces other than nature, it has been argued that the Common Fisheries Policy provides a solution to a major international problem related to the exploitation and allocation of a trans-national resource. Essentially, to efficiently and effectively manage the production and distribution of fish from primary producer to consumer requires agreement between its 'owners` but legal entitlement to the fish is less easy to agree at the primary stage of production.

2.2. While agreement is achieved through the adoption of management measures at the Community level, their implementation is the responsibility of the Member States themselves.

2.3. Such a management structure is likely to lead to differences in the actual practice of management within the waters of the European Community and the link between the 'owners` of the resource and the 'users`, particularly the fishermen, is likely to be arbitrary especially in terms of policy formulation and implementation.

Regions highly dependent on fisheries

2.4. The arbitrary link between the 'owners` of the resource and the 'users` is often seen demonstrated in relation to regions highly dependent on fisheries. The definition of an 'area dependent on fisheries` would seem to indicate that the inter-relationships between the fishing industry and the local/coastal or regional economy are well-documented, i.e. '... an employment area (or a group of municipalities) where the contribution of the fisheries sector to economic activity (as measured in terms of jobs or value added) is such that the difficulties of the fisheries sector have resulted or will result in the slackening of activity and job losses which seriously undermine the socio-economic fabric...` (). However, the emphasis is on the inter-relationship as it takes place on the land-ward side of the coast. Consideration of the links between the industry and its basic resource, i.e. the sea-ward side of the relationship, is often less precise and may make the present definition and measures of dependency inappropriate if better specified ().

An objective, systematic description of areas dependent on fisheries is needed. This should extend even beyond regional level and go right to local level. It should be drawn up in relation to specific resources and fleets, with a view to identifying areas seriously affected by particular CFP measures and allaying their adverse social effects in areas which genuinely have few socio-economic alternatives to fishing and related industries.

2.5. This lack of knowledge of the precise relationship of areas dependent on fisheries to specific basic resources/fisheries would be expected to lead to significant problems.

2.6. The pursuit of policy goals of maintenance of employment and income (socio-economic goals) is likely to be constrained by lack of knowledge and of user involvement in the management and control of those basic resources important to specific fisheries dependent areas.

2.7. If the opportunity to manage the resources for the benefit of the specific region(s) is not taken, continued 'high dependency` on fisheries may represent the only realistic employment choice in the long term. By not considering explicitly the natural resource and its wealth creating possibilities, the dependency is likely to be strengthened through unplanned dissipation of that wealth and under-investment in land-ward side resources. Using the wealth of the basic resource itself to create alternative employment could perhaps lead to a reduction of fisheries dependency in the longer term and an increase in the incomes received in the fishing industry itself (). Additionally, the use of a more planned and coordinated approach to resource use would assist in integrating the management of fisheries into the management and development of the coastal areas and also assist in taking into consideration environmental issues when deciding on fisheries policy.

Impact of measures

2.8. Various attempts have or are being made to consider the impact of measures under the Common Fisheries Policy (). The completed studies all faced the problem of attributing specific developments in the sector to policy rather than to concurrent economic trends. As a result the impact of many of the measures could not be explicitly quantified.

2.9. However, given the identified crisis in the Community's fishing industry, it is likely that the planned impact, at least in the short-term, will be negative with 'regions highly dependent on fisheries` suffering disproportionately in terms of job losses and a decline in the socio-economic structures. It is for those reasons that the Commission has considered it necessary to implement additional and wide-ranging accompanying measures of a socio-economic nature at the Community level to assist ().

Attention should be drawn to the fact that until the Community PESCA initiative (1994) and the accompanying socio-economic measures mentioned in the preceding paragraph (1995), there were no flanking measures to ease the restructuring of the sector. This failure to integrate structural policy and social policy may be one of the causes of the failure of the CFP as recognized in the report on monitoring implementation of the CFP; its roots lie in the lack of political will shown by national governments and the minimal involvement of the sector.

2.10. While the planned short-term impact may be negative in order to secure positive results in the medium to long-term, actions (both legal and illegal) have been taken and are likely to be taken to alleviate the costs imposed by management measures (). Furthermore, actions of avoidance have often led to longer-term distortions in the structure of the industry such that it may now better reflect the demands of the regulations than those of the market in some Member States.

2.11. Given the above and the uncertain links between regions highly dependent on fisheries and the basic resource(s), it is probable that the impact of measures under the Common Fisheries Policy will be arbitrary and variable across the Community as a whole and in any case will not always result in the planned impact.

2.12. Community measures are often not of a horizontal nature, but concern specific fishing grounds and ICES zones. A detailed census is therefore needed of the fleet operating in these areas, according to type of fishing and region of origin, so as to evaluate the impact of the measures.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The Common Fisheries Policy and associated measures can be separated into four separate but inter-related parts concerned with structures, markets, conservation and international fisheries agreements. However, given the context in which this Opinion is given the focus will be on those measures concerned with conservation and structures.

3.2. Since the end of 1992 the Common Fisheries Policy has been based on a new basic Regulation (). While this new Regulation is primarily concerned with conservation, it recognizes the need to integrate the markets, structures and conservation elements of the Policy and, in particular, establishes an explicit link between conservation of resources and the restructuring of catching capacities to achieve the general objectives defined as follows:

'... As concerns exploitation activities, the general objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy shall be to protect and conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources, and to provide for rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis in appropriate economic and social conditions for the sector, taking account of its implications for the marine eco-system, and in particular taking account of the needs of both producers and consumers...` ().

Conservation measures

3.3. The various conservation measures essentially concern rules governing access to waters and resources and the pursuit of exploitation activities together with their management and monitoring in order to '... ensure the rational and responsible exploitation of resources on a sustainable basis...` (). These measures are to be drawn up in the light of the available biological, socio-economic and technical analyses and in particular in the light of reports from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

Rules of access to waters

3.4. Within the 200 mile fishery limits of Member States, access to waters continues to be restricted even for Community fishing vessels (). Under Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 '... Member States are authorized to retain, from 1 January 1993 until 31 December 2002, the arrangements defined in Article 100 of the 1972 Act of Accession and generalize up to 12 nautical miles for all the waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction the limit of six miles laid down in that Article...`. Within these limits specified arrangements are made for the pursuit of fishing activities, fixing for each Member State the geographical zones within the coastal bands of other Member States where these activities are pursued and the species concerned. Furthermore, the arrangements for the so-called 'Shetland Box` have been retained.

3.5. It would appear that in determining the general rules of access to waters a 'regional` principle was being followed given that Article 100 of the 1972 Act of Accession refers to restricting fishing to... 'vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area...`. However, the intended impact of these measures restricting access to the six and 12 mile zones on the conservation of the stocks and on the coastal regions where fishing is the main if not the only activity has been diluted insofar as Member States have not limited the intensity of fishing in the coastal zone and not given preference to vessels operating from small coastal communities or protected them from the fishing activities of larger more nomadic fishing vessels. Resolute application of the subsidiarity principle and regional involvement in decision-taking would give the regions a greater say in management and a greater share of responsibility for the development and implementation of fisheries' policy.

Rules of access to resources

3.6. Measures for each fishery or group of fisheries may include establishment of zones in which fishing activities are prohibited or restricted; the limitation of exploitation rates; setting quantitative limits on catches; limiting time spent at sea: fixing the number and type of fishing vessels authorized to fish; laying down technical measures regarding fishing gear and its method of use; setting a minimum size or weight for individual fish and establishing incentives, including those of an economic nature, to promote more selective fishing.

Restrictions on fishing activity

3.7. Regulation No 3760/92 retains the measures for managing fishing activity through the regulation of catches (landings) by Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas allocated to the Member States according to the principle of 'relative stability` (). However, the possibilities for regulating inputs as well as outputs is added to the available management tools and these measures are placed in a multiannual (and multi-species) framework and subject to not only biological but socio-economic analysis. The Regulation permits the Council to fix for each fishery different kinds of limitations on exploitation activities and in relation to specific management objectives. So catches can be fixed through the usual TAC/quota arrangements and/or limitations can be placed on effort by restricting the number of vessels and the number of days spent at sea. The increasing importance placed on managing fishing effort is reflected in Article 5 of Regulation 3760/92 which provides for the introduction by the Council of a Community system of fishing licences ().

3.8. However, despite certain changes in these measures the management structure remains strictly hierarchical with Community based decisions implemented by Member States with impacts of measures on regions highly dependent on fisheries not always specifically and formally considered (). Such impacts as do or are likely to occur become issues external to the process and the subject for remedy by other instruments of policy such as the proposed Socio-Economic Accompanying Measures.

Technical conservation measures

3.9. Protection of marine resources is also attempted by the use of minimum mesh sizes for nets, minimum landing sizes, restrictions on fishing activity in certain zones and restrictions on the level of by-catch.

3.10. From an economic viewpoint, technical conservation measures are likely to lead to a reduction in the net benefits of producing fishing effort through short-term reductions in efficiency and in revenue. Given their potential short-term negative impacts and, in certain cases, their complexity, they have proved difficult to enforce as have many of the other measures of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Control and enforcement

3.11. A new Community control system was adopted by the Council in October 1993 (). The scope of this new system is considerably wider than before covering all the elements of the Common Fisheries Policy and concerned, therefore, not only with conservation but also with the structural and marketing measures of the Policy and applicable throughout the entire industry from the primary sector to the final consumer. It also allows the introduction of modern technology into control and enforcement activities. However, as before and according to the principle of subsidiarity where responsibility is allocated to the most appropriate level, it is the Member States who must ensure that the rules are followed and policed and the penalties decided and applied through national courts.

3.12. The necessity for a new Community control system was indicated in detail in a report from the Commission in 1992 (). This report identifies major shortcomings in the implementation of inspection legislation. These shortcomings were related to difficulties regarded as inherent to fishery management policies in general, the lack of inspection resources and dissuasive penalties, the lack of political commitment, practical difficulties associated with Community inspection, the lack of an overall approach to inspection in the Common Fisheries Policy, and lack of coordination between the various inspection bodies and imperfect information concerning the need for conservation measures. As a result of those shortcomings, the impact of measures under the Common Fisheries Policy on individual enterprises and on regions highly dependent on fisheries cannot be expected to have been that which was planned nor equitable in the distribution of the costs and benefits of control.

3.13. While many of these identified shortcomings have been addressed in the new legislation, the system itself and the role of the players within it remains as before. In particular, the inherent difficulties encountered by all fishery management policies, i.e. the lack of property rights in the resource and constant tension between the individual short-term interest and the collective long-term interest, would seem better solved, according to the legislation, by essentially stricter enforcement and higher penalties.

3.14. However, there may be other determinants of compliance or non-compliance with the rules than those which can be characterized as economic, i.e. the expected benefits of violating a regulation weighed against the expected costs (the probability of detection and conviction multiplied by the size of the penalty). Some, for example equity of impact on individuals and regions, are being addressed in the new legislation through attempts to harmonize the level of national penalties. However, it may be that the present management system which is essentially that of command and control from the top down, is not seen as fully legitimate from the point of view of individual fishermen and particularly from the point of view of regions which are highly dependent on fisheries when faced with measures which may inflict considerable economic pain in the short-run. Legitimacy may be improved through the promotion of justice by involving the regions and industry more formally in the implementation of policy. At all events, the Community authorities must apply the inspection and control mechanisms needed to guarantee uniform compliance with fisheries' law in all regions. This harmonization should ideally extend to the dissuasive measures and penalties established by the various Member States.

International fishing agreements and international waters

3.15. The recent UN conference on trans-zonal and highly migratory stocks, which is currently at the ratification phase, provides a basis for the rational exploitation of resources located in international waters through regional cooperation. This is a priority concern for the Community, since major fleets depend on such resources. The Community must be actively involved in the control bodies of existing or future regional resource management organizations wherever Community interests are at stake, and should promote such bodies if necessary, in order to ensure rational and durable exploitation and to avoid these organizations coming under the sway of coastal states to the detriment of Community interests and the coastal regions and communities which depend on the sector.

Structural measures

3.16. The objective of the technical conservation measures is to protect fish stocks through minimum mesh sizes, minimum fish sizes and controls over fishing activities in specified zones or on levels of by-catches. Setting TACs and allocating them between the Member States also has the intention of setting catch restrictions but neither these or the technical conservation measures can directly control catching capacities.

3.17. Consequently structural measures are now seen as an important and integral part of the conservation policy, as formally recognized in Regulation No 3760/92. Given that surplus catching capacity is regarded as present in the Community fishing fleet and an important contributor to the identified crisis in the Community fisheries sector, a major concern of the structural measures is related to the direct and indirect effects of catching capacity reduction ().

3.18. Substantial reductions in fishing effort are required through the adopted third-generation Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) over the period 1993-1996, i.e. a reduction of 20 % for segments of the fleet using bottom trawls for demersal species, a reduction of 15 % for those segments using dredges and beam trawls targeting benthic stocks and no reduction (or increase) for those vessels fishing all other stocks (). While the third-generation MAGPs are much more detailed than the MAGPs which had been previously agreed for 1982-1986 and 1987-1991 through the setting of different sectoral objectives, they do not appear to take due account of the socio-economic impact on specific regions highly dependent on fisheries. As indicated previously, there is a degree of arbitrariness in applying measures on a national basis and, in the case of MAGPs, Member States may not take fully into account the particular importance of fisheries to local regions in attempting to meet the agreed targets.

3.19. The medium- and long-term impact of reductions in fishing effort through capacity reduction (and through a reduction in activity rates, given that up to 45 % of the fleet reduction target can be measured in terms of reduced effort), are expected to be positive. However, it is in the short-term that damaging repercussions in terms of job losses and a decline in the socio-economic structures of many coastal areas are expected and these consequences of policy together with the virtual impossibility of the excess fishing capacity being absorbed without additional accompanying measures, are argued to justify their implementation.

3.20. Accompanying measures already available include aid to fisheries enterprises for laying up their vessels or transferring them to third countries (). In addition, areas dependent on fishing were included in the measures for the various area objectives () and applications for assistance under the PESCA Community Initiative have been invited and agreed ().

3.21. It is the perceived gap in Community arrangements that account for the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 by introducing measures of a socio-economic nature (). It is proposed that financial assistance from the FIFG may be granted for the following measures (a) part-financing of national early retirement schemes for fishermen under certain conditions (b) granting individual compensatory payments to fishermen and (c) aid for the establishment (not operation) of bad-weather unemployment funds and mechanisms for the financial compensation of fishermen when the market value of products landed fluctuates sharply. These new measures are proposed as optional, at the discretion of the Member States and applicable exclusively in the context of measures for the permanent cessation of activity of fishing vessels within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 or in the context of setting up joint enterprises within the meaning of Article 9(3) of that Regulation.

3.22. Since the original proposal by the Commission, Opinions have or are being prepared by the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee as required by the Treaty (). Furthermore, a common position has been adopted by the Council whereby most Member States indicated that they could agree to a Presidency compromise for the use of FIFG funds to support national early retirement schemes for fishermen and for compensation payments to crews of decommissioned vessels but the original proposals relating to bad weather payments and additional support for market price fluctuations were excluded (). Indeed an opinion was expressed that such measures should be covered by national social policies and were not a justifiable use of FIFG funds.

3.23. The Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee is focused on the specific proposal and, while supportive, argues for a widening of the scope of the support measures. However, this present Opinion has the advantage of a wider remit in considering the impact of measures under the Common Fisheries Policy. Consequently the specific proposal for measures of a socio-economic nature can be viewed in this wider context and observations made of perhaps a more fundamental nature.

3.24. Indeed these proposals for accompanying measures demonstrate again the treatment of socio-economic considerations as an external cost of policy decisions rather than being treated as a primary consideration in policy objectives. Furthermore regional considerations would not seem to be formally incorporated into some of the major structural measures, particularly those associated with the achievement of MAGP target reductions in fishing effort. If structural imbalance between effort and resources is central to the identified crisis and if capacity reduction remains of major importance, then the interests of regions highly dependent on fisheries need to be taken into account when formulating the MAGPs. The existing policy appears arbitrary and it is this arbitrariness which may generate the external costs requiring additional socio-economic accompanying measures.

3.25. The compensatory accompanying measures introduced with the reform of Regulation 3699/93 and the PESCA initiative should be stepped up and their budget increased, and they should be extended throughout the period of application of the Regulation, so that they genuinely help to offset the regional imbalances caused by the restructuring of the sector.

4. Conclusions

4.1. It is a rather simple but important observation that the basic resources of marine fishing industries are often located at some distance from those regions which are highly dependent on them for income and employment. Furthermore these valuable basic resources are often exploited by fishing enterprises and regions as 'users` and not as 'owners`.

4.2. The fragile and tenuous nature of this link between a regional industry and its resource base is not typical and is reflected in the apparent better knowledge and documentation of the land-ward side as compared to the sea-ward side of the relationship and made more so by treating the problems that arise as solvable as external to primary policy decisions.

4.3. Essentially the conservation approach to fisheries policy which emphasises the welfare of fish stocks and the dependency of the industry on their state is well-represented in the Common Fisheries Policy. In addition, the pursuit of economic efficiency and increased wealth by reductions in the number of fishery participants is supported by its major structural elements particularly now that the two aspects of policy are seen as mutually supportive, i.e. by reducing the capacity (and effort) of the fleet conservation goals as well as economic goals can be achieved. However, the socio-economic view which sees fishermen and other participants in the industry as members of coastal communities highly dependent on fisheries rather than as mere constituent parts of a fleet or industry tends to be dealt with in policy measures as a secondary rather than a primary consideration, e.g. the pursuit of conservation and rationalization goals generate negative impacts which require some form of assistance in the form of support measures. These support measures must be sufficient to forestall resistance by the agents involved and to permit greater co-responsibility on the part of national and regional authorities. They must cover the various aspects, such as training and retraining of fishermen, and incentives for companies which find new employment for excess fisheries sector workers, including self-employment. They must allow for flexible application of restructuring in the fisheries sector, in such a way that the social cost is least in areas which depend on fishing and have no alternatives, once such areas are precisely defined and identified. Similarly, these measures must be of sufficient scope to allow for appropriate, dynamic planning over time.

4.4. The Community must consider the need to strengthen the mechanisms required to extend opportunities for the EC fleet access to external resources in both third country and international waters. This is necessary given the need not to increase the Community deficit in fisheries' products and in view of economic and social cohesion policy towards coastal strips and fishing communities hit by loss of opportunities for access as a result of changes in international maritime law and trade advantages ceded in response to other non-fishing interests.

4.5. The separation of the biological/structural and socio-economic aspects of management results in a centralized system which may not be as sensitive to regional needs as systems involving the 'users` in the implementation rather than in just the receipt of policy decisions. Furthermore compliance with the regulations is likely to be adversely affected where the user-involvement in management is relatively insignificant.

More importance should also be attached to the difference between different coastal areas and their ecology. In particular, the sustainable use of marine resources requires the extension of guidance to technical fishing gear; non-selective general methods should be eliminated in favour of methods for catching specific species and sizes of fish. This principle should be incorporated in the Common Fisheries Policy.

4.6. Consequently the impact of measures under the Common Fisheries Policy on regions highly dependent on fisheries is likely to be variable and arbitrary across the Community as a whole and the actual impact quite different from the planned impact. While support measures such as those proposed by the Commission () may provide welcome relief on a short-term basis, it would appear that a more fundamental shift in approach is required to addressing the medium- and long-term problems of regions highly dependent on fisheries. It is suggested that this approach needs to better consider and integrate the management of the basic capital resource into policy decisions affecting dependent regions and involve the 'users` in making and/or implementing those decisions. As a result the (sustainable) wealth of the fish stocks can be used for the planned economic development (and diversification) of fisheries dependent regions and coastal areas, taking better account of other non-fisheries users of coastal resources and of environmental considerations. In addition it may be expected that compliance with the regulations will increase with the closer involvement of the 'users` in the regional management process, particularly as the perception of the basic resource changes form viewing it as a consumption good to regarding it as a capital asset. In summary, any devolution of the implementation of policy to the regional level might, in the case of fisheries, be a more effective and efficient interpretation of 'the principle of subsidiarity` where responsibility is distributed to the most appropriate level and lead to greater fulfilment of the general objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, i.e. ... 'to protect and conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources, and to provide for rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis in appropriate economic and social conditions for the sector, taking account of its implications for the marine ecosystem, and in particular taking account of the needs of both producers and consumers...` ().

Done at Brussels, 18 January 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Jacques BLANC

() The crisis in the Community's fishing industry (COM(94)335 final, 19. 7. 1994).

() Commission of the European Communities, Community Structural Funds 1994-1999, OOPEC 1993.

() European Commission, Guide to the Community Initiatives 1994-1999, OOPEC 1994.

() Commission of the European Communities, Socio-economic measures to accompany restructuring measures in the fisheries sector and proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 (COM(95) 55 final, 20. 3. 1995).

() European Commission, Notice to the Member States laying down guidelines for global grants or integrated operational programmes for which Member States are invited to submit applications for assistance within the framework of a Community initiative concerning the restructuring of the fisheries sector (PESCA) (94/C 180/01) under title III. BENEFICIARIES.

() Commission of the European Communities - Regional, socio-economic studies in the fisheries sector, Directorate-General for Fisheries, 1993.

() The 'fishing industry is comprised of those engaged in economic and social activities in the sector`, as referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3699/93 of 21. 12. 1993 (OJ No L 346, 31. 12. 1993, p. 1).

() a) Commission of the European Communities - Regional, socio-economic studies in the fisheries sector, Directorate-General for Fisheries, cited above;

b) Commission of the European Communities - In-depth study of the socio-economic impact of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets, forthcoming (as cited in a communication from the Commission on socio-economic measures to accompany restructuring measures in the fisheries sector, COM(95) 55 final, 20. 3. 1995, p. 2).

() Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products, cited above.

() Commission of the European Communities, Report on monitoring implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, SEC(92)394 final, 6. 3. 1992.

() Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20. 12. 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ No L 389, 31. 12. 1992).

() Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, cited above.

() Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, cited above.

() 200 mile fishing limits have not been adopted in the Mediterranean and consequently the Community system for the conservation of marine resources does not apply to Mediterranean fisheries.

() The principle of 'relative stability` concerns the allocation to the Member States of a fixed percentage of the TAC for a given stock to which they have access. This 'distribution key` was applied for the first time in 1983 and established by taking into account a number of criteria, including the specific needs of regions particularly dependent on fisheries, in accordance with the Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 ('Hague Preferences`).

() Subsequent Commission proposals on this issue were divided into two elements: (a) arrangements laying down certain rules for minimum information to be contained in fishing licences essentially providing every Community fishing vessel with identity papers and (b) arrangements to restrict the fishing effort of individual vessels through special fishing permits; see, for example:

a) Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20. 12. 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences (OJ No L 341, 31. 12. 1993).

b) Council Regulation (EC) No 163/89 of 24. 1. 1989 concerning the fishing vessels register of the Community (OJ No L 20, 25. 1. 1989).

c) Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 of 27. 6. 1994 laying down general provisions concerning special fishing permits (OJ No L 171, 6. 7. 1994).

() General socio-economic concerns have provided reasons for ignoring the scientific advice and increasing TACs although where this has involved Hague Preferences it has not always been the case that they have been allocated specifically to the regions on which they are based.

() Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12. 10. 1993, establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ No L 261, 20. 10. 1993). As provided for, and required, by Article 12 of the new basic Regulation No 3760/92.

() Report form the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, cited above.

() The crisis in the Community fishing industry, cited above.

() Commission Decisions of 21. 12. 1992 on Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes for the Fishing Fleets of the Member States for the period 1993 to 1996.

() Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, Articles 8 and 9.

() Structural Funds Framework Regulation, Articles 9 and 11a.

() Commission notice to the Member States laying down guidelines for global grants or integrated operational programmes for which Member States are invited to submit applications for assistance within the framework of a Community initiative concerning the restructuring of the fisheries sector (PESCA) (OJ No C 180, 1. 7. 1994, p. 1).

() Perceived by certain Member States, the European Parliament and the fishing industry (through its official bodies of communication with the Commission).

() Economic and Social Committee Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products (CES 591/95, 31. 5. 1995 and 1. 6. 1995).

() Fisheries Council, 1. 6. 1995.

() Commission of the European Communities, Socio-economic measures to accompany restructuring measures in the fisheries sector and proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, cited above.

() Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, cited above.