18.291 Officialjournal of the European Communities NoC41A^9 
Opinion on the proposal foraCouncil Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC)No 
4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures In the fisheries and 
aquaculture sectors) 
(91/C41/1^) 
On 21 Septemberl990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articlel98ofthelreatyestablishingtheEuropean Economic Community,onthe 
abovementioned proposal 
The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Air ^iuni^Cuardado as Rapporteurs 
Ceneralv^ith the tasl^ of preparing its v^orl^ on the subject. 
At its 281st plenary session (meeting of 20 November 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by 66 votes to 28 within abstentions. 
LheCommitteeingeneralwelcomesthe Commission 
proposal amending Council Regulation No 4028/86 in 
extending it to coastal fishing vessels. 
Lhe CommitteenotestheCommissionproposal with 
interest and, in view of its importance,would make the 
following comments^ 
1. Ceneral comments 
The Committee would make the following comments, 
beginning with those relating to the explanatory mem 
orandum^ 
1.0. The Committee recalls that in its Opinion of 26 
November 1986(^) on Community measures to improve 
andadaptstructures inthefisheries andaquaculture 
sector, it pointed out that^ 
— there wasalackof precision inthetermsused in 
the various titles, 
— there was no reference to social measures. 
PL The Commission must adopt social measures to 
cushion the possible repercussions of application ofthis 
provision. 
1.2. The explanatory memorandum of the Com 
mission proposal stresses the importance of coastal 
fishing at Community level and the need to adopt 
structural measures, for this kind of fishing. 
The Committee feels that it is important torecogni^e 
the economic and social significance of coastal fishing 
— as it accounts for Bo^^llvessels,6eo^of the Com 
munity fishing fleet, ^00 000 fishermen, between 20 and 
2eo^ of Community production measured in tons and 
^01^oe^,^^t^u,D.^ much more in terms of the economic value of the fish 
caught. Coastal fishing also providesalarge number of 
jobs in coastal areas. 
1.^. It is wrong to limit the range of such fishing to 
coastal waters (appro^imately6nauticalmiles) or to 
assume an average crew of2toeo. 
1.4. The Committee feels that plans for the coastal 
fishing fleet should be clarified, as it is unclear whether 
theaidsprovidedforintheproposalaredesignedto 
phase out or strengthen the fleet. 
Leo. fhe Committee feels that flexible criteria should 
be applied to the adjustment of capacities,with regard 
to both layingup and final cessationofactivity.lt the 
objective of the measure is toreduce fishing capacity, 
this will prevent the discrimination which would other 
wise arise if the age and length of the vessel were taken 
into account. 
1.6. The Committee welcomes the Commissions 
admission that the measures proposed in Regulation 
(EEC) No 4028/86 promoting the reorientation of fish 
ingoperations(e^ploratory fishing, jointventures) have 
had little effects the Committee is pleased to note that 
an increase in financial support is proposed. 
L^. TheCommitteesuggeststhattheCommission 
should make it possiblefor both exploratory fishing 
operations and joint ventures to be embarked on with 
all countries, whether or not there is an existing fishing 
agreement. 
1.8. rEhe Committee welcomes the setting up of 
redeployment operations and joint enterprises, 
although it feels that the Commission should clarify 
what it means by primary consideration being given to 
the supply of the Community market. 
No C 41/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
1.9. The Committee stresses that particular attention 
should be paid to actions for the management of coastal 
waters with a view to preserving their ecological func­
tion. 
1.10. The Committee regrets that there is no indi­
cation of the sums to be made available or the criteria 
to be applied by the budget authority, bearing in mind 
that some of the headings are new. It is felt therefore 
that estimates of the sums to be earmarked for the 
various priorities should be drawn up. The extension 
of structural policy to small-scale fishing will require 
additional funding to meet the needs of a different kind 
of fishing. The Commission should take appropriate 
measures to this end. 
2. Specific comments 
2.0. The Committee also feels that a number of 
recitals need to be amplified and clarified, in particular 
the following: 
— Greater emphasis should be given to the recital 
which refers to adverse social effects, as socio-struc-
tural measures have almost always been omitted. 
— The recital referring to promotion campaigns 
should highlight the importance of increasing the 
level of consumption of all species without excep­
tion and make it clear that the phrase 'rapidly 
developing' refers to the production of aquaculture 
products. 
— The recital which states that 'provision should be 
made for the adjustment of certain criteria by a 
simplified procedure so that they can be adapted as 
closely and rapidly as possible to developments 
in a situation subject to fluctuation according to 
regional or sectoral circumstances' should be made 
more explicit and worded with greater clarity. 
2.1. Comments on specific Article 
Article 1(f) 
It should be made clear that the 'rapid growth' of 
aquaculture refers to production. 
Article 1(g) 
The only criteria to be considered in connection with 
the economic activity carried out by professional fisher­
men should be length between perpendiculars and 
inclusion of vessels used for professional fishing in 
the Community fleet register. Vessels used for non­
professional fishing must not benefit from this pro­
vision. Article 1.4 
It should be made clear that Title VII will apply only 
in part to coastal fishing unless Article 23 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 4028/86 is rectified and amended. 
Title I — Multiannual guidance programmes and zonal 
plans 
Article 3(4) 
The deadline for submission of zonal plans to the 
Commission should be extended, given that there is no 
firm date for the adoption and entry into force of the 
proposal, and given that the drawing up of these plans 
is a complex matter and that any conflict with multian­
nual guidance programmes must be avoided. 
Article 9(3)(c) 
The criterion used for distinguishing between vessels 
capable of trawling measuring less than 12m. and ves­
sels not capable of trawling measuring not less than 
9m. and not more than 12m. is not made clear. 
Article 14(l)(b) 
The clause excluding exploratory fishing voyages in the 
waters of countries with which the Community has 
fisheries agreements should be deleted. Exploratory 
voyages can lead to improved fishing agreements. 
Article 14(2)(e) 
The Commission should specify the intervals at which 
the Member States will be informed of the guidelines 
determined. An appropriate period might be twelve 
months. 
Article 15 
Thought should be given to providing an option to 
increase the incentive premium in exceptional circum­
stances (e.g. where the successful completion of the 
campaign is in doubt). 
Title Va — Redeployment operations 
Article 17(a) 
The whole passage referring to the primary consider­
ation of the supply of the Community market should 
be clarified, stressing that the main thing is to keep 
fishing vessels working rather than laid up. 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/41 
Article 17(b) 
The clause excluding redeployment operations conduc­
ted jointly with countries with which the Community 
has fisheries agreements should be deleted. 
Article 17(b)(2)(b) 
The requirement that vessels must have been in oper­
ation for more than five years should be dropped, as 
the structural effects of a redeployment operation are 
similar to those of temporary withdrawal in terms of 
fishing days (120 days during the calendar year preced­
ing the first application); also the phrase in the recital 
which could mean that redistribution operation can be 
renewed once only should be amended. 
Article 17(b)(2)(c) 
The Commission should specify the intervals at which 
the Member States will be informed of redeployment 
operations. The interval should be at least twelve 
months. 
Title VI — Joint ventures 
Article 19(2)(a) 
The requirement that vessels must have been in oper­
ation for more than five years should be dropped. 
Article 19(2)(c) 
The Committee feels that the Member States should be 
consulted on the guidelines to be established for future 
joint ventures. The Commission should be required 
to provide information at least annually on measures 
adopted within the framework of the structures Com­
mittee. 
The fishing zones, fish species, fishing gear and fishing 
methods should be specified later in accordance with 
the Article 47 procedure. The Committee recommends 
that the Article be amended accordingly. 
Article 20(2) 
The maximum level of the laying-up premium should 
be increased and differentiation according to the age of 
the vessel should be dropped. 
Title Via — Joint enterprises 
Article 21(b)(2) 
The possibility should be investigated of reducing the 
minimum period of operation from five to one or two years; new vessels forming joint enterprises should, via 
a compensation mechanism, repay construction pre­
miums before being exported. 
Unless there is a specific article establishing a system 
of exemptions from customs duties for the catches of 
ships joining joint enterprises, such enterprises will 
merely lead to the ultimate disappearance of the fleet. 
It might therefore be advisable to reconsider the content 
of Article 21(c) and at the same time amplify the priority 
criteria listed in 21(c)(4). 
Title IX — Search for new markets 
Article 29(1) 
It should be made clear that the 'rapid growth' of 
aquaculture products refers to production. 
Title XII — General and financial provisions 
Article 40 
If the present system of an overall budget fixed for five 
years is to be replaced by an unspecified amount fixed 
annually, then the budget funds currently available 
should be increased. 
The budget authority should specify the amount to be 
made available and the criteria it intends to apply, 
bearing in mind that many of the headings included in 
this proposal (coastal fishing, redeployment operations, 
joint enterprises, etc.) are new. 
Financing priority should be given to less-favoured 
areas when considering how resources available under 
the new headings are to be distributed. 
3. Annexes 
Annex 2 (Community aid and financial contributions 
from Member States for rebuilding, renovating and 
modernizing the fishing fleet) in the interests of consist­
ency Ceuta and Melilla should be included in Article 50 
of the proposal. 
Annex 4 (Scale of laying-up premiums) The criteria 
used for scaling down the premium for vessels of less 
than 50 tons should be specified. 
No C 41/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 2. 91 
Annex 5 (Eligibility of expenditure on the granting for vessels no more than ten years old should be 
of final cessation premiums) Scrapping premiums considered. 
Done at Brussels, 20 November 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
APPENDIX 
Fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure 
After discussion at the plenary session, the following amendments were defeated: 
Page 8, point 3 
Amend the comments on Annexes 5 and 7 (page 8) as follows: 
'It is not right that the premiums for joint ventures should be higher than those for final cessation. Joint 
ventures also involve a final cessation of fishing activities in Community waters by the vessel concerned 
and definitive removal from the fishing registers of the Member States. Different premiums would be 
discriminatory'. 
Reasons 
Self-explanatory. 
Result of the voting: 
For: 19, against: 54, abstentions: 18. 
Page 8, point 3, Annexes 
Annex V 
Replace the existing text with the following: 
'The criteria for determining the amount of final cessation premiums are too complicated. The rules laid 
down in Annex V to the existing Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 should be retained'. 
Reason 
The proposed system of classifying smaller vessels by length and age, and larger vessels by age and nature of 
cessation is much too complicated and will undoubtedly pose major problems of practical implementation. 
18. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 41/43 
The present rules, which are based solely on the capacity of the vessels to be scrapped, should therefore be 
retained. It should also be pointed out that the rates specified in this annex are merely the maximum amounts 
by which the Member States can be reimbursed by the Community in respect of these measures. The Member 
States are otherwise free to set the total amount of scrapping premiums. 
Result of the voting 
For: 26, against: 52, abstentions: 15. 
Opinion on the proposal from the Commission to the Council fixing the Community's 
generalized tariff preferences scheme for 1991 
(91/C 41/14) 
On 30 October 1990 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the 
Economic and Social Committee, on a voluntary basis, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 16 November 
1990. The Rapporteur was Mr Liverani. 
At its 281st plenary session (meeting of 20 November 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. The Committee would again express its support 
for the generalized system of preferences (GSP) as an 
effective instrument designed, in conjunction with other 
measures, to promote development in less developed 
countries (LDC). It is an essential complement to the 
financial and economic cooperation instruments set up 
by the Community in its relations with the developing 
countries, in particular those that are not otherwise 
formally associated with it. 
2. The Committee considers that given that 1991 is 
the last year in which the 1981-1990 scheme is appli­
cable, significant changes this time round cannot be 
expected. 
3. The Committee recalls, however, that in recent 
years, when consulted on the coming year's draft GSP 
scheme, it has been critical on several counts, and would 
urge that the doubts which it then expressed about the 
effectiveness of the present system, and its requests 
for bold changes in the new scheme, should not be 
overlooked when the new scheme is applied in 1992. 
The Committee has, in fact, consistently called for a 
more concentrated and selective approach so as to 
produce benefits commensurate with the cost of the 
scheme and to neutralize any negative effects on the 
least-developed areas in the Community. It has insisted that countries whose per capita Gross Domestic Product 
(GDP) is higher than that of a Community country or 
with a consistent balance of payments surplus should 
immediately be excluded from the GSP. 
4. The Committee accepts that specific procedures 
for implementing the new guidelines cannot immedi­
ately be implemented and thus find their place in a 
Community's GSP scheme until the outcome of the 
current Uruguay Round negotiations of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) are clearer. 
This being the case, the Committee can only go along 
with the Commission in its proposal to leave in large 
measure unchanged the economic part of the various 
schemes implemented in 1990, and merely to include 
adjustments which necessarily arise from the appli­
cation of the differential criteria begun in 1990. 
5. With regard to the proposal to use, for the second 
time, the GSP as an instrument of EC policy vis-a-vis 
Eastern European countries, the Committee can under 
present circumstances only support the Commission's 
proposal to extend to Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia the 
assistance already in place, through the GSP, for Poland 
and Hungary, so that they can, through easier access 
to the Community market, increase exports and speed 
up industrial productivity.