Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ('Roadmap')"

(COM(2002) 181 final)

(2003/C 85/21)

On 28 May 2002, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The specialised Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 November 2002. The rapporteur was Mr Kallio and the co-rapporteur Mr Chagas.

At its 395th plenary session of 11 and 12 December 2002 (meeting of 12 December) the European Economic and Social Committee adopted unanimously the following opinion.

1. Introduction

1.1. Declining fish stocks and overcapacity in the fishing fleet, coupled with poor economic profitability and loss of jobs, are generating considerable pressure for the reform of the Community's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

1.2. To take stock of the situation and stimulate debate, the Commission published a Green Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy in March 2001. The EESC issued an opinion on the Green Paper in October 2001(1).

1.3. For the implementation of the reforms, in May 2002 the Commission published a Communication to the Council on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy ("Roadmap")(2) and a set of complementary documents(3). In the present Opinion the EESC will comment mainly on the Roadmap, taking into consideration also the complementary documents on "eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing", "conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources", "integration of environmental protection requirements", "structural assistance", and "emergency reserve measure for scrapping fishing vessels".

1.4. As regards conservation of fish stocks and fisheries management, the Commission proposes applying a more long-term approach to fisheries management by means of multiannual framework programmes. Monitoring of fishing effort will be introduced in the framework programmes alongside monitoring of catches. The Commission advocates stronger technical measures to reduce the problem of unwanted catches. Industrial fishing should target species for which there is no market for human consumption. An impact evaluation of industrial fishing on marine eco-systems will be carried out, developing a set of indicators in cooperation with the relevant bodies, including the European Environment Agency. Steps should be taken to develop fisheries management in the Mediterranean Sea. More needs to be done to incorporate environmental concerns into fisheries management and the content of scientific advice on fisheries management should be improved.

1.5. The Commission proposes new rules on the granting of aid to the fishing fleet and measures to limit fleet capacity. The possibility of granting aid for the introduction of new capacity, the export of fishing vessels or the establishment of joint enterprises with third countries is to be removed. To limit capacity in the future, the Commission proposes the fixing of new fleet reference levels, based on the final objectives of MAGP IV. Reduction of capacity will be monitored regularly and countries failing to comply with their reference values will face legal proceedings.

1.6. The Commission proposes the continuation of the current regime of 6-to-12 mile zones. Fishing possibilities will continue to be allocated in accordance with the relative stability principle. It further proposes to identify which access arrangements (such as the Shetland Box) correspond to genuine conservation needs and to remove those that do not.

1.7. A new regulatory framework for control and enforcement is proposed. As part of this framework, the responsibilities of the various parties will be clearly defined. Stricter rules are proposed for compensation and sanctions. The Commission and the Member States will draw up an action plan for cooperation in enforcement. A joint fisheries inspectorate structure will be established at Community level. In addition, the Commission proposes extending the coverage of vessel monitoring by satellite as a key element of the implementing measures.

1.8. In the field of international fisheries, the main aim is to stop the use of flag-of-convenience vessels and illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU). Efforts will also be made to improve and strengthen cooperation and fishing agreements with developing countries.

1.9. The aim of the aquaculture strategy is to assure the availability of healthy products, promote an environmentally sound industry and create employment, particularly in fishing-dependent areas. On 19 September 2002 the Commission adopted a Communication for a sustainable development of European aquaculture(4) which has been generally welcomed by the sector.

1.10. The Commission admits that the reform of the CFP will have major socio-economic effects but is unable to quantify them. However it indicates a figure of 28000 fishermen as possibly being affected by the proposed measures. The Commission intends to conduct bilateral consultations with Member States to assess the socio-economic consequences of the reform. On the basis of these consultations, an action plan will be formulated to counter these consequences. Structural Funds will be reprogrammed to match needs.

1.11. The Commission will organise workshops during 2002 on the economic dimension of fisheries management. Among the subjects to be discussed will be a system of tradable fishing rights and payment for the right to fish and/or recovery of fisheries management costs from the fishing sector.

1.12. Under the heading "Effective and participatory decision-making", the Commission proposes the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management (RACs). The purpose of the RACs is to ensure greater stakeholder involvement in fisheries management. One of their tasks would be to contribute to the development of a European code of responsible fisheries practices to be drawn up in the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. The Commission also proposes the simplification of the rules governing the CFP and greater transparency in Member States' compliance with CFP rules.

1.13. The Commission proposes that the conservation and fleet policy aspects of the CFP be the subject of a further review in 2008.

2. General comments

2.1. The EESC agreed with the diagnosis of the situation in the EU fishing sector reflected in the 2001 Commission's Green Paper and in particular relating to the existing overcapacity in the EU fleet. In fact it must be clear that no sustainable fisheries will be possible if the fleet capacity, but especially, the fishing effort are kept at their current levels. The EESC considers, however, that the approach to the problem cannot be solely economic or ecological. In its Opinion on the Green Paper(5) it underlined that for the regions concerned the importance of fisheries extends far beyond their contribution to GDP. Fisheries cannot be seen as just another sector which the EU has to restructure. In the large majority it is composed of small-scale fishermen whose activities are, in general, respectful of the environment. Fishing constitutes the hub around which a whole series of communities and activities revolve, playing a significant role in terms of social cohesion and regional management, and this is particularly true in the outermost regions and regions which are at present highly dependent on fishing.

2.1.1. In fact, the Commission underlines the low profitability of the sector and concludes that the solution is in drastically reducing the number of vessels and fishers and in making the vessels more effective and profitable. Taking into consideration recent experiences of modernisation of fishing fleets that had, as a consequence, a drastic reduction of employment, not always accompanied by an equivalent reduction in capacity, consideration should be given to the need to meet an adequate balance between profitability and efficiency of fishing vessels on the one hand, and sustainable employment on the other. It must also be recalled that, according to figures from the Commission, in the period 1990 to 1998, 66000 jobs have been eliminated, representing 22 % of the work force. The EESC is of the opinion that an in-depth evaluation should be made of the social consequences of the measures contained in the different proposals adopted by the Commission. Necessary support measures should be simultaneously adopted.

2.2. Conservation of resources and management of fisheries

2.2.1. The EESC endorses the Commission's general aims for conservation of resources and management of fisheries. As regards an immediate and significant reduction in fishing effort, it should, however, be pointed out that the need for reduction varies considerably between fishing grounds, fleet segments and fleet capacity already achieved by each Member State in the framework of MAGP IV.

2.2.2. In addition, it must be noted that the creation of a comprehensive scheme for monitoring fishing effort alongside the quota system would be very cumbersome to administer. Therefore the EESC proposes that the development of arrangements for monitoring fishing effort should focus primarily on the most overexploited fish stocks.

2.3. A new multi-annual framework programme for conservation of resources and management of fisheries

2.3.1. The Commission's proposal for a multi-annual framework programme for conservation of stocks and management of resources is in line with the EESC's opinion on the Green Paper. A multi-annual programme will stabilise the fishing environment and enable fishermen and the processing industry to make longer-term plans for the development of their activities. The EESC considers it important that the programme will, in addition, take into account the particular needs of the EU's outermost regions and of regions which are at present highly dependent on fishing.

2.3.2. The EESC would highlight the importance of high-quality scientific advice for the drawing up of multiannual framework programmes. Raising the standard of advice will make it possible to narrow the gap that currently exists between advice and political decision-making. In this context the EESC encourages greater cooperation between the scientific community and the fisheries sector for the evaluation of the scientific data in a clearer and more vigorous way. This cooperation should be established especially in the Regional Advisory Councils where all the stakeholders are represented.

2.3.3. Despite the fact that the Council has not always decided in accordance with the scientific advice and in the best interest of preservation of marine resources, the EESC has reservations in relation to the Commission's proposal to exclude the Council of the yearly decision-making process on TACs and Quotas once the multi-annual programme has been adopted.

2.4. Strengthening of technical measures

2.4.1. The EESC supports the introduction of more selective fishing gear on Community vessels. Owing to the high cost of making changes to fishing gear, the Committee would stress the need for sufficiently long transition periods in implementing such changes. In addition, the Committee puts forward the possibility of using Community structural assistance to part-fund the acquisition of new types of fishing gear or more selective gear, which might help to speed up changes.

2.4.2. The discard ban trials are in line with earlier EESC recommendations. Discards are due to many different reasons and a ban is not always justified. The trials will have maximum effect if they are coupled with measures aimed at reducing the share of unwanted species in the total catch. Such measures include an increase in the selectivity of fishing gear, temporal and local fishing restrictions and the use of economic incentives to encourage voluntary changes in fishing practices.

2.4.3. Technical measures must be based on extensive scientific evidence. In order to increase the effectiveness of the measures, representatives of the fishing industry must be involved from the beginning in planning new technical regulations and voluntary measures. These might include the gradual elimination of certain types of bottom trawling within the 12 miles zone.

2.5. Industrial fishing

2.5.1. The EESC supports the targeting of industrial fishing primarily at species for which there is no market for human consumption. The impact of industrial fishing on the food chains of other species must be established. In the future, it will be possible to manage industrial fishing of different stocks within the framework of regional multiannual management plans.

2.6. Fisheriesmanagement in the Mediterranean

2.6.1. The EESC supports all efforts to increase cooperation between the countries surrounding the Mediterranean aimed at securing fish stocks and fishermen's livelihoods. Pending a deeper analysis of the document, it welcomes the recently adopted Communication on this matter and is of the view that it may represent an improvement in the way fisheries are presently managed in this area(6).

2.7. Incorporating environmental concerns into fisheries management

2.7.1. Environmental concerns have to be taken into account in all the EU's common policies, including fisheries policy. However, in addressing environmental concerns, the CFP's economic and social objectives must also be taken into consideration.

2.7.2. Clear indicators are needed for monitoring the effects of environmental protection and targeting measures. Given the poor state of the environment, there is good reason to move quickly on this matter. The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal for the speedy establishment of a preliminary set of indicators. The further development of indicators and the monitoring system is a subject which needs to be addressed by the international scientific community in the years ahead, for example by the European Environmental Agency and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

2.7.3. In considering proposals for the protection of sharks, whales and marine birds, the Commission should also be mindful of the conditions necessary for the continuation of fishing activity. Here cooperation with fishermen's organisations is essential in order to minimise the harmful effects on fisheries. In fact, fishing activities must find their balance with environmental sustainability, but the same applies for other human activities, particularly in the coastal areas. These, together with environmental and climatic changes, can also have a significant impact on marine environment. As for the costs arising from protection of the aquatic environment, the EESC, in line with its earlier opinions, would stress the importance of applying the polluter-pays principle, as a means to minimize the negative impact of these different activities. The EESC will comment more in depth on this subject in considering the strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment that has recently been presented in a Communication from the Commission(7).

2.7.4. The introduction of an ecosystem-based approach requires the collection of environmental data on a far more extensive scale than at present and the integration of data from different sources. Therefore the EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal to include marine ecosystems as a separate field of research in the Community's 6th Framework Programme for research.

2.8. An Action Plan for the improvement of scientific advice for fisheries management

2.8.1. Scientific advice on the actual state of fish stocks is the most important element of fisheries management. The EESC therefore considers it very important to improve such advice. Advice is a based on analyses of nationally collected data. At present, there are such large deficiencies in national source data on several fish species that analysis is more or less guesswork. Improvement in source data, their analysis and the level of scientific advice is a long-term goal, which also concerns fishing by non-EU countries in international waters. The EESC encourages better cooperation between the scientific community and the fisheries sector.

2.8.2. Obtaining reliable fishing data requires an intensification of national and international monitoring of fishing, comparison of catch data from different sources and sanctions in cases where it is found that data have been concealed.

2.8.3. The ESCE underlines the need to strengthen research in this field, encouraging better cooperation and exchange of information at European level and allocating appropriate resources in the framework of the VI RTD Programme.

2.9. The impact of fish stock preservation policy on the fishing fleet

2.9.1. In its Opinion on the Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy(8) the EESC agreed with the Commission's analysis regarding excess capacity of the Community fleet. The Committee called on the Member States and the Commission to have the political courage to grasp the attendant challenges and embark on the necessary measures, which must be balanced, decided in a dialogue with the sector and "in particular ... must provide the support needed to cushion any socio-economic consequences".

2.9.2. The EESC also repeated the view frequently stated in previous opinions that: "Fishing cannot be treated solely from an economic viewpoint because ... for the regions concerned, the importance of fisheries and all ancillary activities, both upstream and downstream, extends far beyond their contribution to GDP. Fishing constitutes a hub around which a whole series of communities revolve, and these play a key role in maintaining social balance and ensuring regional management; this role is difficult to quantify in economic terms".

2.9.3. Likewise, the EESC emphasised: "... fleet reduction measures should not lose sight of the need to continue to renew and modernise the Community's fleet. There should be a firm commitment to achieving high-quality conditions for processing the raw material, improving the quality of life on board, and enhancing safety for crews". This is a crucial aspect of redefining the CFP, which needs to be ecologically, economically and socially sustainable. At the same time account must be taken of the fact that fishing is one of the most dangerous professions in Europe and the world, involving the highest number of industrial accidents.

2.9.4. In its proposal for new rules on granting aid to fishing vessels, the Commission has adopted an approach about which the EESC has certain reservations. In particular the Committee is sceptical about the withdrawal of public aid for the modernisation of fishing vessels, which would come into effect as early as 1 January 2003.

2.9.5. Although the fishing fleet in certain Member States is technically quite well developed and very efficient, in other Member States vessels are out of date, small and low in catching capacity. The latter use traditional methods of fishing which are generally more selective than others, and these require considerable manpower. When reducing the Community fishing effort these differences must be taken into account, especially the fact that measures have social implications the impact of which on the communities concerned cannot be measured in monetary terms.

2.9.6. In previous programmes for reducing the fleet, the Member States have each taken a different approach to the issue: some have exceeded the target set for fleet reduction, while others have increased fishing capacity. Figures provided by the European Commission and the Eurostat annual review for 2001 speak for themselves: in the period 1991-2002 the Community catch fell by only about 2 % (6.3 million tonnes) and in some Member States the catch has even increased.

2.9.7. Although subsidies cannot be a permanent solution for the sector, the EESC believes there are still reasons (workers' safety, working and living condition, quality, etc.) to continue granting public aid for modernising fishing vessels. The current restrictions can still be maintained, in particular the ban on increasing fleet capacity. The same point is made in the above-mentioned Opinion on the Green Paper: "... whilst the review of FIFG aid must not overlook the need to modernise the Community fleet, an integrated and coherent policy can only call for the ending of construction and modernisation aid for those fleet segments or Member States which have incontrovertibly failed to meet the targets set in the MAGPs".

2.9.8. The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Sectoral Dialogue Committee for Maritime Fisheries also expressed this view in their opinions on the Green Paper.

2.9.9. The discontinuation of aid to fishing vessels is also likely to accelerate concentration of the Community fishing fleet, which would be harmful to small-scale fishing. This would have serious social implications upstream and downstream, not just for fishing but also for production, and for communities and industries dependent on fishing.

2.9.10. However, the EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission intends to approve the granting of aid to activities related to safety, more selective fishing techniques and improving product quality.

2.9.11. The EESC takes the view that small-scale fishing vessels (under 12 meters) should be left out of the scope of the capacity-reduction plans of the reform.

2.10. Access to waters and resources

2.10.1. The EESC supports the preservation of the current 6-to-12 mile fishing zones under national jurisdiction. As regards fishing beyond the 6-to-12 mile zones, the Commission should conduct negotiations with all Member States as soon possible. The EESC also endorses the continued allocation of fishing opportunities in accordance with the current relative stability principle. However, the EESC considers that care must be taken to respect the content of the Treaties with regard to the principles of equal access and distribution of fishing rights.

2.11. Control and enforcement

2.11.1. In line with earlier opinions, the EESC would stress the importance of control in connection with the reform of fisheries policy. The responsibilities of the Commission and Member States for control and enforcement must be clearly defined. Sanctions for infringements and practical arrangements for their enforcement must be made uniform across Member States. The EESC considers the best solution would be if the power to decide on control procedures under the CFP remained in the hands of the Council.

2.11.2. The EESC supports the extension of the satellite vessel monitoring system to apply to smaller vessels than at present. In view of the high cost of the equipment, the EESC proposes that the Commission contribute towards the cost of the equipment and installation. To ensure that the equipment is used effectively, the Commission must see to it that appropriate training is provided when the equipment is deployed.

2.12. International fisheries

2.12.1. The EESC endorses the Commission's proposed aim to strengthen international cooperation and ensure sustainable and responsible fisheries outside Community waters. Eliminating the use of flag-of-convenience vessels for fishing is one of the priority measures to be taken to achieve the goal of elimination of illegal, uncontrolled and unregulated fishing. The EESC considers that the joint enterprises are one possible instrument for reorientating the fisheries fleet and for cooperation with third countries under the Cooperation and Development Policy. To this end greater coordination is needed in the EU between the CFP and the EU's Development Cooperation Policy, establishing strict criteria for ensuring coherence with the sustainable development strategy.

2.12.2. From the standpoint of fishermen's employment and EU food supplies, there will continue to be a need for fishing agreements with third countries. Sustainable fisheries require that catches are controlled and based on fish stocks that are subject to monitoring. The EESC requests that scientific advice, as proposed by the Commission, be obtained for the fish stocks covered by the agreements before fishing starts. Moreover, third countries' own fishing activities must not be put at risk as a result of fishing agreements. The EESC considers that the Commission should have a more active role, with adequate resources, within the regional fisheries organisations at international level, with a view to a better defence of Community fisheries' policies. Fisheries agreements have an important job creation impact.

2.12.3. The EESC further notes that the EU social partners in the fishing sector, ETF and Europêche, have agreed on a social clause being included in all fisheries agreements with third countries, aiming at ensuring that nationals from those countries working on board vessels benefiting from the agreement enjoy the same working conditions as those of the EU crews on board. It strongly urges the Commission to include this clause into all existing and future agreements.

2.13. Aquaculture

2.13.1. The EESC feels that the Commission's proposals approach the Common Fisheries Policy with a strong bias towards fishing, paying scant regard to the economically important aquaculture sector. The EESC hopes that the separate proposal on aquaculture recently presented will remedy this shortcoming(9).

2.13.2. There has been a steady increase in imports of aquaculture products into the EU and a large proportion of the aquaculture products processed in the EU is already based on imported fish. In order to prevent self-sufficiency from declining further in the future, the EESC considers it important to maintain the level of aquaculture production in the Community at at least its current level.

2.14. The social dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy

2.14.1. The EESC draws attention to fact that the reform of the CFP will have important social implications for coastal regions dependent upon fisheries. It should be noted that for every professional fisherman who loses his job there are several land-based workers who are made unemployed as a result of the knock-on effect. The EESC thinks it is important that the Commission proposes to conduct bilateral consultations as a basis for formulating action plans to assess and counter the socio-economic consequences of the reform of the CFP. The EESC takes note of the recent adoption by the European Commission of an Action Plan(10) to counter the social, economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry and will comment on this in a future opinion.

2.14.2. The EESC would stress that there are several ways of dealing with the loss in employment in fishing and fish processing. The solutions depend on such factors as local employment opportunities, the age structure of fishermen and available forms of support. Here, the Commission can collect extensive data from Member States on the various employment schemes already applied and the experience gained with them. Serious consideration should be given to the joint position to be adopted before the end of 2002 by the European social partners on this matter.

2.14.3. When cutting fleet capacity and offering incentives to fishermen to take up other professions, attention also needs to be paid to the livelihood of the remaining fishermen and the continuation of industry. There must also be scope for modernising the industry and for the entry of young fishermen. In particular, a higher commitment of the Member States to the ratification of the STCW-F Convention and the Protocol to the Torremolinos Convention is desirable.

2.15. Economic management of fisheries in the Union

2.15.1. The EESC does not believe that abolition of the system of national fishing quotas is a realistic goal in the short term. Instead, there should be a discussion on how the level of fishing can be adjusted to meet quotas and how to allocate quotas so as to benefit fishermen in the best possible way. Discussion of the economic dimension of fisheries management should also cover social aspects and environmental concerns.

2.15.2. In its Opinion on the Green Paper (point 2.2.7) the EESC expressed its disagreement with the system of individual transferable quotas (ITQ), underlining the risk that "the institutionalisation of such a system would concentrate fishing rights in large businesses, spelling the end of small-scale fisheries and small and medium-sized enterprises" causing a deterioration in the employment position of fishermen overall. As the Commission is organising workshops on this subject, experience gained in this area should be evaluated considering costs and benefits and impacts on employment in view of issuing proper recommendations. Payment for the right to fish should also be addressed by the workshops.

2.16. Effective and participatory decision-making

2.16.1. The EESC supports the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management (RACs). There is a danger however that the RACs will become regional debating societies, without any practical influence. The EESC takes the view that the RACs must have a clearly defined role identifying all matters affecting fishing in the region providing this will not lead to undermining the maintenance of an EU-based common policy. Third countries which have a significant impact on fisheries in the region concerned should be given an opportunity to participate as external members in RAC meetings and express their opinions.

2.16.2. The EESC agrees that the RACs must play a major role in the implementation of a European code of responsible fisheries practices. It is important here to take regional aspects into account owing to large local differences in fishing practices. The EESC considers that regional advisory councils should be established within the framework of the EU Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and its working groups.

2.17. Eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries

2.17.1. The EESC supports the measures for improving the flow of information between the Community and third countries and strengthening cooperation with a view to curbing unlawful fishing and fishing by vessels flying flags of convenience.

2.17.2. The EESC feels that, given the lack of resources in developing countries for controlling fishing activities, the European Community should assist the developing countries in the control of fishing that takes place in their waters. Assistance should be provided as proposed by the Commission on terms to be determined on a case-by-case basis. This assistance could be part of the fisheries agreements to be concluded with developing countries.

3. Conclusions

3.1. The EESC wishes to highlight particularly the following points with regard to the reform of the CFP and the Commission's documents on the subject:

- The introduction of multiannual framework programmes in fisheries management could benefit the entire fisheries industry and provide operators in the sector with a clearer picture of the future.

- High-quality scientific advice will take on increasing importance in all areas of decision-making related to fisheries management; better coordination at European level is recommended so as to strengthen the research effort in this field ensuring better cooperation with the fisheries sector.

- Greater consideration must be given to environmental concerns in decision-making than at present. However, in addressing environmental issues, the economic and social objectives of the CFP must also be taken into account.

- The EESC proposes that the polluter-pays principle be applied in determining who is to bear the costs of environmental management, taking into consideration all human activities having an impact on the quality of marine environment and water.

- Public aid should continue to be granted for the renewal and modernisation of the fishing fleet. Aid could be tied to the requirement that, at the same time, steps are taken to reduce fleet capacity.

- The 6-to-12 mile zones and the relative stability principle remain an effective basis for regulating fishing in the future.

- International cooperation and better control are essential for achieving the objectives of the CFP.

- Special attention needs to be paid to the socio-economic implications of the CFP reforms for the entire coastal community. The CFP reforms must not be allowed to destroy the livelihoods of the remaining fishermen or prevent the entry of young people into the sector.

- The Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management are to be welcomed, but they need to be given a clearly defined role and concrete tasks within the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and its working groups.

Brussels, 12 December 2002.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger Briesch

(1) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

(2) COM(2002) 181 final.

(3) COM(2002) 180 final, COM(2002) 185 final, COM(2002) 186 final, COM(2002) 187 final and COM(2002) 190 final.

(4) COM(2002) 511 final.

(5) COM(2002) 511 final, point 2.1.2.

(6) Communication laying down a Community Plan for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 535 final).

(7) COM(2002) 539 final.

(8) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

(9) Communication on "A strategy for the sustainable development of European Aquaculture" (COM(2002) 511 final).

(10) COM(2002) 600 final.