EN Official Journal of the European Union C 164/31

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation — European Fisheries Fund’

(2005/C 164/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation — European Fisheries Fund (COM(2004) 497 final — 2004/0169 (CNS));

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 15 July 2004 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to its President's decision of 26 May 2004 to instruct its Commission for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries' sector;

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy;

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy (COM(2001) 135 final — CdR 153/2001 (1));

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 181 final and on the Commission Communication setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 186 final — CdR 189/2002 (2));

Having regard to its opinion on the Commission Communication — A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture (COM(2002) 511 final — CdR 20/2003 (2));

Having regard to its opinion on the financial perspectives: Communication from the European Commission Building our common Future — Policy challenges and Budgetary means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013 (COM(2004) 101 final — CdR 162/2004 fin);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 252/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 9 December 2004 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Sir Simon Day, Devon County Council, (UK/EPP));

WHEREAS

1) the common fisheries policy should provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner, specifically taking into consideration the circumstances of the regions of the European Union;

2) the sustainable development component of the common fisheries policy has been integrated into the rules governing the Structural Funds since 1993. Its implementation should be pursued in the context of sustainable development by means of the European Fisheries Fund;

3) the scope of the common fisheries policy extends to the conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources and aquaculture, as well as the processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products in so far as those activities are practised on the territory of Member States, in Community waters or by Community fishing vessels or nationals of Member States;

4) the European Fisheries Fund will have a substantial effect on the regions and it is therefore essential that regional and local authorities are involved in the implementation of the measures proposed in the regulation on the European Fisheries Fund;

adopted the following opinion at its 58th plenary session of 23 and 24 February 2005 (meeting of 23 February):

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

General remarks

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.1 welcomes the European Commission's proposals for a regulation on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) to support a sustainable fisheries sector. This fund is necessary as it is vital that local fishing communities can maximise the volume of support to assist fisheries, alternative economic development, and environmental initiatives throughout the current process of radical change;

1.2 is of the view that the EFF's budget of around €700 million per year is more or less in line with the budget of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) for the EU's current financial perspective. The Committee of the Regions believes that this budget is a minimum to achieve the objectives outlined in the proposal and should under no circumstances be reduced in negotiations with the other EU Institutions. There is an acceptance that there is a finite pot distributed around more players and that due to cohesion new Member States will benefit more from Convergence funding. The financial challenge for ‘old’ Member States in the future will be to spend smaller amounts in the best ways;

1.3 urges that Regions should have a clearly defined role in each section of the European Fisheries Fund which has a direct impact on the regional and local level. There should be provisions to allow regionally administered schemes; for example restructuring is a regional issue and local structures should allow local flexibility for interpretation to fit circumstances. The regional structure should also enable a flexible interpretation of diversification to fit local circumstances;

1.4 welcomes efforts to introduce more selective and environmentally-friendly fishing techniques. Problems associated with discards and bycatch, especially of cetaceans, have become an increasingly serious problem in most parts of the European Union in recent years. Efforts to counter these problems must, however, take local circumstances into account;

1.5 agrees, in terms of structural aid, that the EFF should be focused more towards conservation and environmental initiatives, safety, increasing product quality and diversification and less on capital investment measures designed to increase capacity;

1.6 requests that the definition of ‘small-scale coastal fishing’ be extended, as it is currently restricted to vessels of an overall length of less than 12 metres that do not use towed gear, so that it may include small-scale, selective, environmentally-friendly practices that are not necessarily linked to the dimensions of the vessel;

1.7 suggests clarification is needed as to whether projects will be allowed to be financed from more than one priority axis to enable integrated activity at project level;

1.8 calls for the reconsideration of the mechanism of joint enterprises and the extension of the intended use of vessels that are to cease operating definitively, so that these might be converted into tools for economic progress in developing countries;

1.9 considers there should be compatibility between EFF and Structural Funding during implementation to enable Member States and partners to determine the most appropriate funding instruments to fit the local circumstances. This link is important as many future ERDF Competitiveness programmes will not have standard provision set aside for fishing- dependent areas as in the past, so without this option to use EFF or Structural Funds, some support activity for coastal area communities might fall between a funding gap;

1.10 seeks clarification of the position regarding the Decision establishing Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and the relationship of the RACs to EFF management. The reform of the CFP adopted in December 2002 provided for RACs in order to improve governance within the CFP and specified that the Council would decide on the establishment of RACs. RACs offer the opportunity for stakeholders to be more closely involved in the development of the CFP;

1.11 suggests that clarification is needed on whether the RACs will have any direct involvement in the EFF process. As RACs are expected to increase the involvement of stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of EU Fisheries Policy in the coming years, there needs to be more information on this aspect;

1.12 endorses the emphasis placed on promotion of equality between men and women in the Fisheries Industry as well efforts to introduce young people and improve working practices and conditions in this sector; suggests a set of case studies, using examples from different Member States, would be a useful tool for the Commission to produce to help spread current experience and best practice.

Remarks on the administration of the European Fisheries Fund

1.13 recognises that the addition of new exceptions regarding the application of rule N+2 increases the flexibility and helps the regions especially those of the new Member States to absorb in a timely and orderly manner the structural funds; agrees with the proposals for pre-financing of one annual entitlement (Article 78); suggests it would be helpful if audits of the current system processes are completed in time to provide useful input and case studies to aid design of the next programme;

1.14 considers monitoring should be simplified and minimised, but should still be sufficient to show evidence that programmes have been implemented within the rules and demonstrate what activity has been effective. Alongside this, the audit requirements should be simplified and clarified and the Committee of the Regions recommends that the proposals maintain the definition of officially recognised organisations as in Regulation 3759/92;

1.15 recommends that the fund should give priority to projects intended to deliver more money per unit of fish landed, e.g. quality schemes, improving supply chain linkages and improving market knowledge and understanding for vessels and processors. Projects to find alternative and additional uses for fishing industry infrastructure could be covered, so that a reduction in the number of vessels might not be the end of the infrastructure if it also has an additional customer/user base.

Remarks on specific articles

1.16 welcomes efforts to establish a clearer framework for the EFF and a more ‘strategic’ approach to Fisheries Policy generally. In particular, the Committee of the Regions welcomes the ‘partnership’ approach (Article 8) to be established between the Commission, Member States and competent local and regional authorities. This will ensure that appropriate matched funding is made available to ensure that EFF financial support is forthcoming for restructuring and economic development in the fishing-dependent areas;

1.17 requests that the Commission consults the Committee of the Regions for its views for the content of the Community Strategic Guidelines (Article 14) as this would ensure input from the level of government closest to those most affected;

1.18 strongly recommends that the strategic report from each Member State (Article 17) includes reference to the Partners of the Member State and how the Member State has worked with their Partners;

1.19 calls on the Commission to clarify the scope of assistance aimed at the ‘economic and social prosperity’ of fishing areas, under Axis 4 for ‘Sustainable Development’ (Article 42);

1.20 suggests a clarification and further investigation of the designation of areas mentioned in Article 42.3. It may be that in this context delegated management should be along the same lines as mainstreamed Leader, which would enable a degree of coordination with, and learning from, Community-based initiatives within the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

1.21 requests that more practical information should be made available in Article 44 under Axis 4, on the proposed Coastal Action Groups (CAGs). This should include clarification how CAGs are intended to be positioned within regional and local level structures of government, as well as details of their size and composition, administrative and financial capacity. There also needs to be clarification on how the responsibility of the private sector is intended to be defined in Article 44.2;

1.22 calls for clarification of what partners are covered by Article 45 (c);

1.23 suggests it would be helpful if the Commission better define at this early stage what would be deemed ‘force majeure’ under EFF to enable a better understanding of Article 90; suggests that the Commission should as a first instance include loss occasioned by any of the following: political unrest, hostilities, threat of war, terrorist activity, and not include losses from: strikes, industrial disputes, closure of ports, weather conditions;

1.24 considers that it may be more appropriate for the aquaculture problems under Article 32 to be placed as an aspect within Article 90.

2. The recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

Recommendation 1

Point 29 of the preamble

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 29 The Community fleet should be reduced in order to adapt it to the available and accessible resources; 29 The Community fleet fishing effort should be reduced adjusted in order to adapt it to the available and accessible resources.

Reason

Reducing the fleet is only one of several ways to adjust the fishing effort in line with the available resources. Measures for adjusting the fishing effort should be implemented when justified by the resources.

Recommendation 2

Point 33 of the preamble

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 33. Detailed rules should be laid down for granting aid to aquaculture, processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products, while ensuring that theses sectors retain economic viability; for this purpose, it is necessary to identify a limited number of priority objectives for assistance and to focus the structural aid on micro and small enterprises; 33. Detailed rules should be laid down for granting aid to aquaculture, processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products, while ensuring that theses sectors retain economic viability; for this purpose, it is necessary to identify a limited number of priority objectives for assistance and to focus the structural aid on micro and small enterprises;

Reason

Medium-sized enterprises should not be excluded from aid to aquaculture, processing and marketing of fish products. Many of these enterprises, particularly in the canning industry, fall under the definition of medium-sized enterprises because they employ a large workforce; however, their volume of business is well below the threshold for medium-sized enterprises. This is therefore incompatible with the necessary trend towards the concentration of the sector.

Recommendation 3

Article 4

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (e) encourage sustainable development and the improvement of the quality of life in marine, lake and coastal areas affected by fishing and aquaculture activities; (e) encourage sustainable development and the improvement of the quality of life in marine, lake and coastal areas affected by fishing and aquaculture activities, particularly in peripheral maritime regions;

Reason

Clarification of priorities.

Recommendation 4

Article 6

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Complementarity, consistency and compliance 1. The Fund shall provide assistance which complements national, regional and local measures, integrating into them the priorities of the Community. 2. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that assistance from the Funds is consistent with the activities, policies and priorities of the Community. 3. The Member States ensure that operations financed by the Fund comply with the provisions of the Treaty and of acts adopted under it, and with Community policies and actions, in particular relating to the rules on competition and the award of public contracts and the protection and improvement of the environment. 4. Operations financed by the Fund shall not contribute directly or indirectly to increasing fishing effort. 5. The provisions of article 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 shall apply. Complementarity, consistency and compliance 1. The Fund shall provide assistance which complements national, regional and local measures, integrating into them the priorities of the Community. 2. The Commission and the Member States shall ensure that assistance from the Funds is consistent with the activities, policies and priorities of the Community. 3. The Member States ensure that operations financed by the Fund comply with the provisions of the Treaty and of acts adopted under it, and with Community policies and actions, in particular relating to the rules on competition and the award of public contracts and the protection and improvement of the environment. 4. Operations financed by the Fund shall not contribute directly or indirectly to increasing fishing effort where there is a clear risk of overcapacity. Neither shall the Fund contribute to increasing fishing effort of species that are subject to quotas and regulation or of species whose stocks are outside a biologically safe framework. Funding for fishing of clearly underfished species is, however, permitted. 5. The provisions of article 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 shall apply.

Reason

Without this clarification the Article brings in an unwelcome total ban on increasing fishing capacity.

Recommendation 5

Article 9

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 1. Implementation of the operational programmes shall be the responsibility of Member States. That responsibility shall be exercised in accordance with the management and control requirements laid down in this Regulation at the appropriate territorial level. 1. Implementation of the operational programmes shall be the responsibility of Member States, working with designated partners. That responsibility shall be exercised in accordance with the management and control requirements laid down in this Regulation at the appropriate territorial level.

Reason

This should lead to improved partnership.

Recommendation 6

Article 10

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 1. The Community budget allocated to the Fund shall be implemented within the framework of shared management between the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002. However, the budget for technical assistance referred to in Article 45(1) is implemented by the Commission within the framework of direct management. The Member States and the Commission shall ensure compliance with the principles of sound financial management in accordance with Article 274 of the Treaty. 1. The Community budget allocated to the Fund shall be implemented within the framework of shared management between the Regions, the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1605/2002. However, the budget for technical assistance referred to in Article 45(1) is implemented by the Commission within the framework of direct management. The Member States and the Commission shall ensure compliance with the principles of sound financial management in accordance with Article 274 of the Treaty.

Reason

Regions should have a clearly defined role in each area of the European Fisheries Fund which has an impact on the local and regional level. To this end, regions should be incorporated into the ‘shared management’ approach advanced by the Commission, to ensure that they are in the administration and delivery of the EFF.

Recommendation 7

Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 2. Assistance shall take the form of operational programmes only. Member States shall draw up an operational programme at national level on completion of close consultations with the regional, local, economic and social partners in the fisheries sector and all other appropriate bodies in accordance with their institutional structure. 2. Assistance shall take the form of operational programmes only. Member States, in cooperation with local and regional authorities as well as economic and social partners, shall draw up an operational programme at national level on completion of close consultations with the regional, local, economic and social partners in the fisheries sector and all other appropriate bodies in accordance with their institutional structure.

Reason

This should lead to improved partnership.

Recommendation 8

Article 19

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (c) actions aimed at improving and modernising the administrative structures for implementing the Common Fisheries Policy and strengthening the administrative capacity for the management and inspection of the Fund; (c) actions aimed at improving and modernising the administrative structures for implementing the Common Fisheries Policy and strengthening the administrative capacity for the management and inspection of the Fund, including delegating some functions of the Managing Authority to sub-regions to streamline the operation;

Reason

The proposed Managing Authority or its partial operation should be delegated below national level. The experience of both PESCA funding (1996-2000) and the current Objective 1 (2000-2006) programmes show that the most efficient, streamlined and simple operation of programme delivery requires local management. The Regulation must therefore allow Member States to delegate some of the functions of Managing Authority to the local partnerships.

Recommendation 9

Article 23

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Scope The Fund shall contribute to financing: (a) public aid for ship owners and crews affected by national plans to adjust fishing effort where these form part of the following: — recovery plans as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; — emergency measures as referred to in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002; — national effort adjustment plans following the non-renewal of a fisheries agreement between the Community and a third country or a substantial cut in fishing opportunities under an international agreement or other arrangement; — management plans as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002; — national plans for exit from the fleet with a maximum duration of two years as part of the obligations laid down in Articles 11 to 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the adjustment of the capacity of the Community fishing fleet. Scope The Fund shall contribute to financing: (a) public aid for ship owners and crews affected by national plans to adjust fishing effort where these form part of the following: — recovery plans as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; — emergency measures as referred to in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002; — national effort adjustment plans following the non-renewal of a fisheries agreement between the Community and a third country or a substantial cut in fishing opportunities under an international agreement or other arrangement; — management plans as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002; — national plans for exit from the fleet with a maximum duration of two years as part of the obligations laid down in Articles 11 to 16 of Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the adjustment of the capacity of the Community fishing fleet.

Reason

The validity period of the effort adjustment plans should at least match that of the programmes they are part of.

Recommendation 10

Article 24 (6)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 6. The duration of the national fishing effort adjustment plans referred to in Article 23 (a) shall not exceed two years. In the cases provided for in Article 23 (a), first, second and fourth indent, the national plans shall be adopted by the Member States within two months following the date of the Council or Commission decision. In the cases provided for in Article 23 (a), third indent, the Member States shall adopt the restructuring plans for the vessels and fishermen affected within two months following the notification from the Commission. 6. The duration of the national fishing effort adjustment plans referred to in Article 23 (a) shall not exceed two years. In the cases provided for in Article 23 (a), first, second and fourth indent, the national plans shall be adopted by the Member States within two months following the date of the Council or Commission decision. In the cases provided for in Article 23 (a), third indent, the Member States shall adopt the restructuring plans for the vessels and fishermen affected within two four months following the notification from the Commission.

Reason

In a 2007-13 programming framework, it does not seem justifiable to limit the fleet adjustment plans to only two years. As regards the second correction, two months is insufficient time and should be extended to at least four months.

Recommendation 11

Article 25

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Public aid for permanent cessation 1. The Fund shall provide assistance for the part-financing of the permanent cessation of fishing activities of vessels provided it forms part of a fishing effort adjustment plan referred to in Article 23 (a). The definitive cessation of fishing activities of a vessel may be achieved only by the scrapping of the vessel or its re-assignment for non-profit making purposes. Public aid for definitive cessation paid to the owners of vessels shall apply to the vessel's fishing capacity and, where appropriate, to the fishing rights associated with it. Public aid for permanent cessation 1. The Fund shall provide assistance for the part-financing of the permanent cessation of fishing activities of vessels provided it forms part of a fishing effort adjustment plan referred to in Article 23 (a). The definitive cessation of fishing activities of a vessel may be achieved only by the scrapping of the vessel or its re-assignment for non-profit making purposes. Public aid for definitive cessation paid to the owners of vessels shall apply to the vessel's fishing capacity and, where appropriate, to the fishing rights associated with it.

Reason

Public aid for permanent cessation of the fleet is intended to ensure the reduction of the fishing fleet. This reduction is achieved through the elimination of the vessel in question and not through the elimination of the rights of access to certain fisheries. In the case of the vessels of the NEAFC fleet, to eliminate a fishing unit would entail eliminating the currently legal possibility of ‘saving up’ their rights of access to other vessels from the same fleet in order to have better access, in terms of coefficients, to the allocation of individual quotas.

Recommendation 12

Article 26 (1)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Public aid for temporary cessation 1. In the context of the fishing effort adjustment plans referred to in Article 23 (a), first, second and fourth indent, the Fund may contribute to the financing of aid measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activities for fishermen and the owners of vessels for a maximum period of one year, which may be extended by a year. These temporary cessation measures shall accompany a fishing effort adjustment plan ensuring within two years a permanent reduction in capacity equal at least to the reduction in fishing effort resulting from the temporary cessation. Public aid for temporary cessation 1. In the context of the fishing effort adjustment plans referred to in Article 23 (a), first, second and fourth indent, the Fund may contribute to the financing of aid measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activities for fishermen and the owners of vessels for a maximum period of one year, which may be extended by a year. These temporary cessation measures shall accompany a fishing effort adjustment plan ensuring within two years a permanent reduction in capacity equal at least to the reduction in fishing effort resulting from the temporary cessation.

Reason

Measures for temporary cessation must have a positive sustainable effect; therefore they must form part of a fishing effort adjustment plan. However, to set the condition that the fleet undergoes a permanent reduction equal at least to the reduction in fishing effort resulting from temporary cessation is excessive. It must be left to each Member State to decide in their plan of adjustment.

Recommendation 13

Article 27

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Investments on board fishing vessels and selectivity 1. The Fund may contribute to the financing of equipment: (a) provided for in Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; (b) making it possible for catches to be kept on board the discarding of which is no longer authorised; (c) as part of pilot projects covering the preparation or trial of new technical measures for a limited period to be set by the Council or the Commission; (d) for reducing the impact of fishing on habitats and the sea bottom and on non-commercial species excluding fishing gear. 2. The Fund may contribute to the financing of investments to achieve the selectivity of fishing gear provided that the vessel concerned is affected by a recovery plan referred to in Article 23(a), first indent, is changing fishing method, and is leaving the fishery concerned to go to another fishery where the state of the resource makes fishing possible and that the investment only concerns the first replacement of the fishing gear. 3. In addition to the cases described in paragraph 2, the Fund may contribute to the financing of the first replacement of fishing gear provided that the new gear is more selective and meets recognised environmental criteria and practices which go beyond existing regulatory obligations. Investments on board fishing vessels and selectivity 1. The Fund may contribute to the financing of equipment: (a) provided for in Article 11(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; (b) making it possible for catches to be kept on board the discarding of which is no longer authorised; (c) as part of pilot projects covering the preparation or trial of new technical measures for a limited period to be set by the Council or the Commission; (d) for reducing the impact of fishing on habitats and the sea bottom and on non-commercial species excluding fishing gear. (e) related to more selective or low impact fishing techniques, avoiding undesirable by-catches, improvement of quality and safety of products caught and stored on board, improvement of working and safety conditions. 2. The Fund may contribute to the financing of investments to achieve the selectivity of fishing gear provided that the vessel concerned is affected by a recovery plan referred to in Article 23(a), first indent, is changing fishing method, and is leaving the fishery concerned to go to another fishery where the state of the resource makes fishing possible and that the investment only concerns the first replacement of the fishing gear. 3. In addition to the cases described in paragraph 2, the Fund may contribute to the financing of the first replacement of fishing gear provided that the new gear is more selective and meets recognised environmental criteria and practices which go beyond existing regulatory obligations. 4. The Fund may provide financial assistance for the building of new vessels provided that: — the measure is set out in sufficient detail in the national strategic plan — it does not reduce the effectiveness of the national fishing effort adjustment plan.

Reason

To ensure that assistance can include provision for equipping or modernising vessels to upgrade the standards of the fleet and to prevent the Community fishing fleet from becoming obsolete, provided that the effectiveness of the national fishing effort adjustment plan is not reduced.

Recommendation 14

Article 27 a

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Small-scale coastal fishing 1. For the purposes of this Article, 'small-scale coastal fishing' means fishing carried on by fishing vessels of an overall length of less than 12 metres and not using towed gear as listed in table 2, Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 26/2004 of 30 December 2003 regarding the fishing vessels register of the Community( ). 2. Where the Fund provides financing for measures under Article 27 of this Regulation in favour of small-scale coastal fishing the private financial participation rate shown in group 2 of the table in Annex II shall be reduced by 20%. 3. Where the Fund provides financing for measures under Article 28 of this Regulation the rates shown in group 3 of Annex II shall be applied. 4. The Fund may contribute to the payment of premiums for fishermen and vessel owners involved in small-scale coastal fishing in order to: — Improve management and control of access conditions to certain fishing areas; — Promote the organisation of the production, processing and marketing chain of fisheries products; — Promote voluntary steps to reduce fishing effort for the conservation of resources; — Use technological innovations (more selective fishing techniques which go beyond the relevant regulatory requirements) that do not increase fishing effort; The rates laid down in group 3 of the table of Annex II of this Regulation shall be applied. Small-scale coastal fishing 1. For the purposes of this Article, 'small-scale coastal fishing' means fishing carried on by fishing vessels of an overall length of less than 12 metres and not using towed gear as listed in table 2, Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 26/2004 of 30 December 2003 regarding the fishing vessels register of the Community( ). 2. Where the Fund provides financing for measures under Article 27 of this Regulation in favour of small-scale coastal fishing the private financial participation rate shown in group 2 of the table in Annex II shall be reduced by 20%. 3. Where the Fund provides financing for measures under Article 28 of this Regulation the rates shown in group 3 of Annex II shall be applied. 4. The Fund may contribute to the payment of premiums for fishermen and vessel ship owners involved in small-scale coastal fishing in order to: — Improve management and control of access conditions to certain fishing areas; — Promote the organisation of the production, processing and marketing chain of fisheries products; — Promote voluntary steps to reduce fishing effort for the conservation of resources; — Use technological innovations (more selective fishing techniques which go beyond the relevant regulatory requirements) that do not increase fishing effort; — Promote fishing of clearly underfished species. — Assist renovation to improve integrated development of coastal areas; — Improve safety equipment on board as well as hygiene and working conditions; — Introduce the use of degradable fishing gear in specially protected marine areas; The rates laid down in group 3 of the table of Annex II of this Regulation shall be applied.

Reason

To improve the definition and scope of the article and because fisheries professionals should be encouraged to look to underfished species rather than focusing on stocks where there is currently overcapacity.

Recommendation 15

Article 28

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Socio-economic compensation for the management of the fleet 1. The Fund may contribute to the financing of socio-economic measures proposed by the Member States for fishermen affected by developments in fishing and which involve: (a) the diversification of activities with a view to promoting multiple jobs for people actively employed in the fishing sector; (b) schemes for retraining in occupations outside sea fishing; (c) early departure from the fishing sector, including early retirement; 2. The Fund may also contribute to the financing of training measures and training incentives for young fishermen who wish to become owners of a fishing vessel for the first time. Socio-economic compensation for the management of the fleet 1. The Fund may contribute to the financing of socio-economic measures proposed by the Member States for fishermen affected by developments in fishing and which involve: (a) the diversification of activities with a view to promoting multiple jobs for people actively employed in the fishing sector; (b) schemes for retraining in occupations outside sea fishing; (c) early departure from the fishing sector, including early retirement; (d) minimising the impact of a temporary fishing ban. (e) the loss of jobs on board vessels covered by permanent cessation measures. 2. The Fund may also contribute to the financing of training measures and training incentives for young fishermen who wish to become owners of a fishing vessel for the first time.

Reason

Clearly, businesses should not have to suffer economically from a ban imposed by the authorities. Furthermore, fishing effort adjustment measures will lead to the elimination of fishing units and the corresponding jobs. Socio-economic measures must also cover crews affected by the elimination of vessels qualifying for permanent cessation, as set out in the framework currently in force.

Recommendation 16

Article 30

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Eligible measures 1. The Fund shall assist investments helping to realise one or more of the following objectives: a) diversification towards new species and production of species with good market prospects; b) implementation of breeding methods substantially reducing environmental impact when compared with normal practice in the fisheries sector; c) support for traditional aquaculture activities important for preserving both the economic and social fabric and the environment; d) measures of common interest relating to aquaculture as provided for in Chapter III of this Title and vocational training; e) compensating for the use of aquaculture production methods helping to protect the environment and conserve nature; f) implementation of public and animal health measures. 2. Investment aid shall be reserved for micro and small businesses. Eligible measures 1. The Fund shall assist investments helping to realise one or more of the following objectives: a) diversification towards new species and production of species with good market prospects; b) implementation of breeding methods substantially reducing environmental impact when compared with normal practice in the fisheries sector; c) support for traditional aquaculture activities important for preserving both the economic and social fabric and the environment; d) measures of common interest relating to aquaculture as provided for in Chapter III of this Title and vocational training; e) compensating for the use of aquaculture production methods helping to protect the environment and conserve nature; f) implementation of public and animal health measures. 2. Investment aid shall be reserved for micro and small businesses.

Reason

The EFF contributes to the creation of jobs and the generation of new economic activities in the aquaculture sector and the marketing and processing of its products. This contribution should not be limited to investments by micro and small businesses. The Member States will, according to their possibilities, be able to prioritise assistance to projects that enable more efficient socio-economic development of the fisheries sector and fishing-dependent areas.

Recommendation 17

Article 33

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Investments in processing and marketing 1. The Fund may support, under the specific strategies to be included in the national strategic plans, investments in processing for direct human consumption and in the marketing of fishery and aquaculture products. This aid is restricted to micro and small enterprises. Investments in processing and marketing 1. The Fund may support, under the specific strategies to be included in the national strategic plans, investments in processing for direct human consumption and in the marketing of fishery and aquaculture products. This aid is restricted to micro and small enterprises.

Reason

The EFF contributes to the creation of jobs and the generation of new economic activities in the aquaculture sector and the marketing and processing of its products. This contribution should not be limited to investments by micro and small businesses. The Member States will, according to their possibilities, be able to prioritise assistance to projects that enable more efficient socio-economic development of the fisheries sector and fishing-dependent areas.

Recommendation 18

Article 34.2

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (g) adding value at source such as primary and secondary processing.

Reason

This is one of the main objectives of many current strategies and encourages significant economic development within new and existing processing enterprises.

Recommendation 19

Article 36

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (e) contribute towards the initial set up costs of collective groups in the fisheries sector.

Reason

The assistance towards projects by collectives is welcomed. However, collective actions often require new organisations to be set up, thus assistance towards initial set up costs should be included in the assistance.

Recommendation 20

Article 38.2

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (f) assistance to upgrade quayside fish markets.

Reason

This is an area where added value helps underpin the other investments mentioned in the Article.

Recommendation 21

Article 39 (3)

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment 3. The investments shall relate to: (a) conducting national and transnational promotion campaigns; (b) the disposal of surplus or underexploited species which are discarded or of no commercial interest; (c) implementation of a quality policy for fishery and aquaculture products; (d) promotion of products obtained using methods with low impact on the environment; (e) promotion of products recognised under the terms of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92; (f) quality certification; (g) labelling, including the labelling of products caught using environmentally friendly fishing methods; (h) product promotion campaigns or campaigns to improve the image of the fisheries sector; (i) implementation of market surveys. 3. The investments shall relate to: (a) conducting national and transnational promotion campaigns; (b) the disposal of surplus or underexploited species which are normally discarded or of no commercial interest; (c) implementation of a quality policy for fishery and aquaculture products; (d) promotion of products obtained using methods with low impact on the environment; (e) promotion of products recognised under the terms of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92; (f) quality certification; (g) labelling, including the labelling of products caught using environmentally friendly fishing methods; (h) product promotion campaigns or campaigns to improve the image of the fisheries sector; (i) implementation of market surveys. (j) promoting the creation and work of fisheries producer organisations

Reason

The first part of the amendment improves clarity and the second part aims at ensuring that support for fisheries and producer organisations continue, given the positive effect the FIFG funds have had on promoting fisheries products in this way.

Recommendation 22

Article 41

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Modification or reassignment of fishing vessels The Fund may support the modification of fishing vessels for exclusively training or research purposes in the fisheries sector by public or semi-public bodies, under the flag of a Member State. The Fund may support actions to reassign a fishing vessel permanently to non profit-making activities outside professional fishing. Modification or reassignment of fishing vessels The Fund may support the modification of fishing vessels for exclusively training or research purposes in the fisheries sector by public or semi-public bodies, under the flag of a Member State. The Fund may support actions to reassign a fishing vessel permanently to non profit-making activities outside professional fishing.

Reason

Fishing vessels must be encouraged to take up other activities, including profit-making activities, provided that these are not related to professional fishing. The Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes for fishing fleets that were in force until 2002 would have achieved better results had they allowed vessels to engage in non-fishing activity — including commercial activity — such as tourism, for example.

Recommendation 23

Article 42

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Scope of assistance 1. The Fund shall provide assistance, in addition to the other Community instruments, for the sustainable development and improvement of the quality of life of coastal fishing areas eligible as part of an overall strategy which seeks to support the implementation of the objectives of the common fisheries policy, in particular taking account of its socio-economic consequences. 2. The measures for the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas shall seek to: (a) maintain the economic and social prosperity of these areas and value to fisheries and aquaculture products; (b) maintain and develop jobs in coastal fishing areas through support for diversification or the economic and social restructuring of areas faced with socio-economic difficulties as a result of changes in the fisheries sector; (c) promote the quality of the coastal environment; (d) support and develop cooperation between national and transnational coastal fishing areas. 3. Each Member States shall include in its operational programme a list of the areas eligible for support from the Fund under sustainable development of coastal areas. A fisheries coastal area is generally smaller than NUTS III, with a sea or lake shore, or including a river estuary which has links with fisheries. The area should be reasonably be coherent from a geographical and oceanographical, economic and social view point. The area should have low population density shall, a significant level of employment in the fisheries sector, fishing shall be in decline, and there shall be no municipality with more than 100 000 inhabitants. 4. The Member State shall inform the Commission of the eligible areas under paragraph 3 Scope of assistance 1. The Fund shall provide assistance, in addition to the other Community instruments, for the sustainable development and improvement of the quality of life of coastal fishing areas and particularly the peripheral maritime areas, eligible as part of an overall strategy which seeks to support the implementation of the objectives of the common fisheries policy, in particular taking account of its socio-economic consequences. 2. The measures for the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas shall seek to: (a) maintain the economic and social prosperity of these areas and value to fisheries and aquaculture products; (b) maintain and develop jobs in coastal fishing areas through support for diversification or the economic and social restructuring of areas faced with socio-economic difficulties as a result of changes in the fisheries sector; (c) promote the quality of the coastal environment; (d) support and develop cooperation between national and transnational coastal fishing areas. 3. Each Member States shall include in its operational programme a list of the areas eligible for support from the Fund under sustainable development of coastal areas. A fisheries coastal area is generally smaller than NUTS III, with a sea or lake shore, or including a river estuary which has links with fisheries. The area should be reasonably be coherent from a geographical and oceanographical, economic and social view point. The area should have low population density shall, a significant level of employment in the fisheries sector, fishing shall be in decline, and there shall be no municipality with more than 100 000 inhabitants. 4. The Member State shall inform the Commission of the eligible areas under paragraph 3

Reason

The first part of the amendment serves to clarify the priorities. The second part of the amendment is motivated by the fact that the article's first two paragraphs set out the basic guidelines for the measure. As the condition that areas be reasonably coherent from a geographical, oceanographical, economic and social view point is sufficient, there should be no restriction to municipalities with less than 100 000 inhabitants.

Recommendation 24

Article 44

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Participation in the sustainable development for coastal fishing areas 1. Actions to assist sustainable development of coastal fishing areas shall be implemented on a given territory by a group of local public or private partners set up for this purpose, hereafter called the 'coastal action group' (CAG). Each CAG, established in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned, shall be selected transparently following a public call for proposals. 2. Operation carried out on the initiative of CAGs shall be the responsibility of the private sector for a least two third of the projects. 3. The CAGs may qualify for support from the Fund provided that they carry out integrated local development actions based on a bottom up process and applied in a given territory or to a specific category of persons or type of projects. The Member State shall ensure that the CAG has sufficient administrative and financial capacity to administer the forms of assistance and successfully complete the planned operations. 4. The territory covered by the CAG should be consistent and have sufficient critical mass in terms of human, financial and economic resources to support a viable development strategy. 5. The CAGs in a given Member State or region, depending on the specific nature of the institutional structure, shall form a joint association with statutes which guarantee their proper functioning. Participation in the sustainable development for coastal fishing areas 1. Actions to assist sustainable development of coastal fishing areas shall may be implemented on a given territory by a group of local public and/or private partners set up for this purpose, hereafter called the 'coastal action group' (CAG). Each CAG, established in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned, shall be selected transparently following a public call for proposals. 2. Operation carried out on the initiative of CAGs shall be the responsibility of the private sector for a least two third of the projects. 3. The CAGs may qualify for support from the Fund provided that they carry out integrated local development actions based on a bottom up process and applied in a given territory or to a specific category of persons or type of projects. The Member State shall ensure that the CAG has sufficient administrative and financial capacity to administer the forms of assistance and successfully complete the planned operations. 4. The territory covered by the CAG should be consistent and have sufficient critical mass in terms of human, financial and economic resources to support a viable development strategy. 5. The CAGs in a given Member State or region, depending on the specific nature of the institutional structure, shall form a joint association with statutes which guarantee their proper functioning. 6. The CAGs should be enabled to exchange best practices and capacity building experiences with Leader action groups.

Reason

The first part of the amendment improves clarity and flexibility for local conditions. Point 2 of the Commission text is deleted as no limit should be imposed on projects that can be carried out on the initiative of the public sector in this area and as the priority should be to do everything to enable projects that contribute to achieving the stated aims, regardless of whether it is the public or the private sector overseeing the projects. The new point 6 is motivated by the need to learn from best practice developed for rural communities under the Structural Funds. This should lead to improved organisation and CAG start up at the beginning of the programme period.

Recommendation 25

Article 54

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Eligibility of expenditure 1. Expenditure shall be eligible for a contribution from the Fund if it has actually been incurred by the beneficiary for carrying out an operation between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2015. Operations co-financed must not have been completed before the starting date for eligibility. 2. Expenditure shall be eligible for a contribution from the Fund only if it has been incurred for operations decided on by the managing authority of the operational programme concerned or under its responsibility in accordance with criteria set in advance by the monitoring committee. A new expenditure, introduced during the review of an operational programme, shall be eligible from the date of the receipt by the Commission of the request for modification of the operational programme. 3. The rules on eligibility of expenditure shall be laid down at national level subject to the exceptions provided in this Regulation. 4. The following expenditure is not eligible: (a) VAT; (b) debt interest; (c) purchase of land for an amount higher than 10% of total eligible expenditure for the action concerned; (d) accommodation. 5. Provisions in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Article 45. Eligibility of expenditure 1. Expenditure shall be eligible for a contribution from the Fund if it has actually been incurred by the beneficiary for carrying out an operation between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2015. Operations co-financed must not have been completed before the starting date for eligibility. 2. Expenditure shall be eligible for a contribution from the Fund only if it has been incurred for operations decided on by the managing authority of the operational programme concerned or under its responsibility in accordance with criteria set in advance by the monitoring committee. A new expenditure, introduced during the review of an operational programme, shall be eligible from the date of the receipt by the Commission of the request for modification of the operational programme. 3. The rules on eligibility of expenditure shall be laid down at national level subject to the exceptions provided in this Regulation. 4. The following expenditure is not eligible: (a) VAT; (b) debt interest; (c) purchase of land for an amount higher than 10% of total eligible expenditure for the action concerned; (d) accommodation. 5. Provisions in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Article 45.

Reason

Non-VAT registered businesses should be able to receive a contribution on a VAT-included basis.

Accommodation expenses should be included as long as they are genuinely incurred in connection with specific projects that are eligible for funding.

Recommendation 26

Article 63

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment (c) it shall examine the results of implementation, particularly achievement of the targets set for each priority and the interim evaluations referred to in Article 48; (c) it shall examine the results of implementation, particularly achievement of the targets set for each priority and the interim evaluations referred to in Article 48 and where appropriate implement any virement necessary to ensure achievement of targets;

Reason

This will contribute towards simplification of the process.

Recommendation 27

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission CoR amendment Group 2: (productive investments) Measures for the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas (article 43); investments on board fishing vessels (article 27); investments in aquaculture (article 30); investments in processing and marketing of the fishery products (article 34); promotion and development of new markets (article 39). Group 2: (productive investments) Measures for the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas (article 43); investments on board fishing vessels (article 27); investments in aquaculture (article 30); investments in processing and marketing of the fishery products (article 34); fishing port facilities (article 38); promotion and development of new markets (article 39).

Reason

Private investments in fishing ports of interest to all fishermen using them and helping to improve the services offered to the fishermen should not be excluded as eligible measures.

Brussels, 23 February 2005 The President of the Committee of the Regions Peter STRAUB

(1) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 44

(2) OJ C 256, 24.10.2003, p. 29