31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/75 
j) The Community's joint responsibility for cooper­
ation with and aid to developing countries should 
be recognized in the Treaty. 
k) Steps should be taken within the framework of 
international monetary organizations (IMF, G 7, 
etc.) to initiate an analysis and possible reform of 
Done at Brussels, 26 September 1991. 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Support for a global policy 
1.1. Adjustment 
1.1.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission 
Communication and its intention to bring the Common 
Fisheries Policy (CFP) into line with the new situation. 
1.2. Consultation 
1.2.1. The Committee stresses that the Commission 
document takes the form of a Communication, and will the existing international monetary system, which 
many see as contributing to the world's, and thus 
to the Community's, present economic difficulties. 
1) Consideration should be given to the likely influx of 
immigrants, in particular from Central and Eastern 
Europe and North Africa. 
be followed by a report which the Commission is to 
submit to the Council by 31 December 1991. The Com­
mission wishes to weigh up its stance against that of 
the Member States' authorities and of those involved 
in the sector at national and EC level. 
1.3. A global policy 
1.3.1. The fisheries sector as a whole is highly com­
plex. For this reason, a global policy is to be preferred 
embracing all aspects (stocks, prices and markets, struc­
tures, social aspects). The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament on the Common Fisheries Policy 
(91/C 339/14) 
On 11 January 1991 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
Common Fisheries Policy. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 September. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Silva. 
At its 289th plenary session (meeting of 26 September 1991), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion nem. con. with two abstentions. 
No C 339/76 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
2. The need for a social policy 
2.1. A serious shortcoming 
2.1.1. The failure of Community fisheries policy to 
take account of the social dimension has been a serious 
shortcoming. 
2.1.2. The Commission does however seem to be 
aware of the need to take the social dimension into 
account. 
2.2. Earlier ESC Opinions 
2.2.1. The Committee—in particular in its Opinion 
on the social aspects of sea fishing (l)—has repeatedly 
drawn attention to the fact that the Common Fisheries 
Policy lacks a proper social component. This tends to 
reduce the value of the positive action taken in other 
spheres. 
2.3. Integration of the social dimension 
2.3.1. Community law makes widespread use of the 
concept of integration, and it is unclear why there is 
not to be any integration of the social dimension in 
other EC policies, too. 
3. Need for accompanying socio-economic measures 
3.1. The socio-economic consequences of structural 
policy (the multiannual guidance programmes or MGP) 
and stock management must be carefully considered 
before they are implemented. Provision must also be 
made for accompanying measures. 
4. Importance of support from the sector 
4.1. If fisheries policy is to succeed, shipowners and 
fishermen must support its aims. To ensure maximum 
support, the policy must aim at optimum use and 
development of Community resources. It must help 
businesses to remain viable, and ensure reasonable 
incomes and modern social conditions. 
5. The Mediterranean 
5.1. Given the special features of the Mediterranean 
region, the Committee considers that the Community 
should take the necessary political, technical and regu­
latory steps to integrate the region fully into the CFP. 
(!) OJ No C 237, 12. 9. 1988. II. GENERAL COMMENTS 
1. Conservation and management of resources 
1.1. Preservation for the future 
1.1.1. The purpose of fishing is to maintain extrac­
tion of the maximum renewable resources while at 
the same time maintaining the balance of the marine 
environment to preserve it for the future. 
1.2. Maintain activity and improve incomes 
1.2.1. A proper conservation policy should be but­
tressed by advances in scientific knowledge and the 
technological developments which they generate, so 
that stocks can be steadily renewed. This in turn will 
help ensure the survival of this fundamental economic 
activity and improve the incomes of the sector's work­
force. 
1.3. Protection of the marine environment 
1.3.1. Environmental parameters 
1.3.1.1. A proper policy for the conservation and 
management of fish stocks must also consider the pro­
tection of the marine environment. The biological situ­
ation on which fishing depends is heavily influenced by 
environmental factors, chiefly pollution. Global 
environmental measures are called for which cannot 
simply be left to Community environment policy but 
must instead be an integral part of the CFP. Article 
130 R of the Treaty rightly stresses that 'environmental 
protection requirements shall be a component of the 
Community's other policies'. 
1.3.1.2. Knowledge and use of the environmental 
parameters for determining fish biomasses should make 
it possible to gauge the extent to which the environment 
affects the mortality of species, and might show that 
fishing mortality should not be systematically blamed 
as the sole reason for the deterioration in stocks. 
1.3.2. Water quality 
1.3.2.1. It is vital to know of any changes in the 
quality of Community waters. The sector's organiz­
ations should be kept informed of the situation, and of 
the EC's objectives and actions as well as their results. 
The EC should work vigorously with the Member 
States and the international community, and strive to 
educate the public in general and fishermen in par­
ticular. 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/77 
1.4. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and quotas 
1.4.1. Maintain and improve the system 
1.4.1.1. Despite the inadequacies of the system for 
regulating fishing effort, experience shows that the pre­
sent TAC and quotas system should be maintained. 
Although there is room for improvement, the system 
(together with other structural measures) has helped to 
curb the 'disastrous effects of over-fishing of certain 
stocks^1), and to divide up fishing possibilities among 
the Member States. The system is in general use, and 
those working in the sector are already familiar with it 
and its mechanisms. 
1.4.1.2. However, the use of analytical methods 
alone (without reference to other parameters—see point 
1.3) does not always correspond to the biological situ­
ation. The compiling and use of multi-species models 
would give a more concrete picture of the development 
of the species within the ecosystem. 
1.4.2. Annual 'carry-over' scheme 
1.4.2.1. The Committee wonders whether the recog­
nized inadequacies of the TAC and quota system might 
be eliminated by the introduction of an annual 'carry­
over' scheme (positive or negative) for each Member 
State. 
1.4.3. Quota swaps and the coefficients 
used for them 
1.4.3.1. In any event, a similar system already exists 
for situations where one Member State has exceeded 
its quota at the expense of another Member State 
[Regulation (EEC) No 493/87 of 18 February 1987]. 
1.4.3.2. In the same way, Article 5 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 170/83 allows for adjustment of Member 
States' fishing in line with changes in activity. The 
swapping of quotas between Member States allowed 
under this Article is important and useful because, while 
respecting the principle of 'relative stability', it allows 
a certain degree of flexibility in fishing activity. The 
coefficients used for quota swaps were laid down in 
1983 in tonnes of cod equivalent, and should perhaps 
now be adapted since trends on the market and in 
fishing itself have enhanced the value or reduced the 
price of species, which are now held in differing regard 
on the market. 
(*) Guidelines and initiatives for the development of the Common 
Fisheries Policy—Communication from the Commission to 
the Council (12 June 1986) Doc. COM(86) 302 final. 1.4.4. Proposals 
1.4.4.1. It would also appear necessary: 
— To provide for greater involvement of those work­
ing in the sector. 
— To establish (a) multi-species quotas for related or 
jointly-fished species and (b) multi-area quotas, 
even if this is not totally satisfactory from a scientific 
viewpoint. 
— Alongside this multi-species approach, to establish 
authorized bycatches in the case of fishing for 
human consumption. When fishing for one species 
in a fishing ground is closed, fishermen could keep 
a limited percentage of the bycatch caught at the 
same time as the species for which fishing continues, 
rather than being obliged to throw the fish back. 
Such a bycatch is generally of no interest in terms 
of stock since the fish are dead, and throwing them 
back is a waste of effort; by selling them—even in 
limited quantities—fishermen would improve their 
yields and hence their incomes. 
— In tandem, and if the gravity of the situation war­
rants, to introduce a Community licensing system 
for sensitive areas. Member States would be respon­
sible for administration of the list of vessels author­
ized to fish in these areas. The list could be revised 
at regular intervals (to be determined later). The 
total number of licences would correspond to the 
authorized level of fishing effort. 
1.4.5. Precautionary TAC 
1.4.5.1. At the same time, it seems reasonable to 
allow flexibility in applying TAC in cases where insuf­
ficient information is available on development of 
stocks. 
1.4.6. Simple measures 
1.4.6.1. In any event, no system of management is 
perfect. Rational management requires a package of 
measures which are not over-technical. Simple measures 
which can be refined later are preferable to apparently 
perfect but impractical measures. 
1.5. Technical measures 
1.5.1. Ease of monitoring 
1.5.1.1. Technical measures should be avoided which 
No C 339/78 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
cannot be monitored or which could cause confusion 
or be interpreted differently by inspectors. 
1.5.2. Prior testing 
1.5.2.1. New provisions (square mesh panels, 
increased mesh size, etc.) should be tested with the 
cooperation of the sector before they are introduced, 
in order to gauge their impact and make provision for 
accompanying measures. 
1.6. Industrial fishing 
1.6.1. Effect on stocks 
1.6.1.1. The impact on stocks of industrial fishing 
(catches not intended for human consumption) needs 
to be clearly assessed. It is inconceivable that technical 
management measures should be strengthened, quotas 
reduced or the fleets restructured, when industrial fish­
ing has a considerable impact—beyond its allotted 
share—on fish stocks in general. 
1.6.1.2. Where industrial fishing is continued for cer­
tain species which can only be used for other than 
human consumption, authorization should only be 
granted if there is no impact on stocks intended for 
human consumption. Under these conditions, proper 
monitoring should be carried out. 
1.6.2. Reconversion 
1.6.2.1. Reconversion of this sector must receive pri­
ority consideration, and the sector must be geared 
towards fishing for human consumption. 
1.7. Monitoring 
1.7.1. A computerized network 
1.7.1.1. As stated in the last paragraph of point 2.2 
of the Commission Communication, an integrated com­
puterized network for vessel surveillance must have the 
full support of the sector. A study should first be 
conducted to ascertain the actual potential, cost and 
practicability of such a system for monitoring the Com­
munity fleet. Installation of the system must not lead 
to differing treatment of different methods of navi­
gation and types of vessel. Neither should it replace 
on- and offshore inspections, which enable species, 
quantities and size of fish caught, and net types to be 
checked. Consequently, it should only be introduced as 
a back-up measure. 1.7.2. Increased monitoring 
1.7.2.1. At all events, the Committee considers that 
increased on- and offshore monitoring is the only way 
of gauging the effectiveness of the technical measures 
and deciding whether they should be altered. 
1.7.3. Training, qualifications and num­
ber of inspectors 
1.7.3.1. Implementation of EC fisheries legislation is 
monitored by inspectors appointed in each Member 
State, although Regulation (EEC) No 4027/86 states 
that these inspectors may be accompanied by officials 
authorized by the Commission. 
1.7.3.2. In the interests of a coherent Common Fish­
eries Policy, and for the benefit of the Community, 
thought should be given to the possibility of training 
national inspectors in Community practices and provid­
ing more EC inspectors, with wider powers, both at 
sea and onshore. 
1.7.4. Financial support 
1.7.4.1. Member States should be granted more fin­
ancial support to help step up surveillance and make it 
more effective. In order to equip themselves with more 
means of surveillance at sea, Member States should 
receive aid for the purchase or use of fishing vessels 
(possibly enlisting vessels which have been laid up 
because of structural policy). 
2. Structures 
2.1. Balance between capacity and effort 
2.1.1. If fish stocks are to be properly managed, 
fishing capacity must be consistent with the level of 
fishing effort permitted—which is not universally the 
case at the moment. This means monitoring the activity 
of the fleet. 
2.2. Need for adjustments 
2.2.1. A perfect balance between capacity and effort 
is impossible; temporary adjustments are needed. This 
raises the question of the best type of management. 
2.2.2. Fishing activity can be significantly stabilized 
by an appropriate combination of measures to regulate 
management of stocks and structural measures to con-
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/79 
trol the Community's fleet capacity. 
2.3. Social impact 
2.3.1. Accompanying measures 
2.3.1.1. The package must be accompanied by 
appropriate social measures. The Committee stresses 
that this is the main criticism levelled by those working 
in the sector, and is one reason why the multiannual 
guidance programmes lack credibility. 
2.3.2. Impact of Community measures 
2.3.2.1. In order to define future priorities for the 
CFP, it is necessary to have an idea of the impact of 
Community measures on employment and incomes. 
The impact on small fishermen (using vessels of less 
than 12 m), who account for the bulk of direct employ­
ment, is particularly important. 
2.4. Gauging the level of fishing effort 
2.4.1. A Community shipping register 
2.4.1.1. A proper structural policy presupposes the 
existence of a Community shipping register. The Com­
mittee supports efforts to secure the best possible infor­
mation on the size of the Community fleet and vessel 
characteristics. Those characteristics which would help 
to gauge the level of fishing are particularly important. 
2.4.2. Indicators of fishing effort 
2.4.2.1. The MGP are measured in terms of engine 
power (kW) and gross registered tonne (GRT). These 
do not on their own provide a sufficient indication of 
fishing effort. Other factors (length of nets and lines, 
number of days spent fishing, etc.) should also be 
considered. 
2.5. A differentiated reduction 
2.5.1. The experts consulted by the Commission pro­
pose an average reduction in fleet capacity of 40%. 
The Committee stresses that such a reduction could not 
be uniform throughout the Community. It should vary 
from country to country and should take account of 
the position of the multiannual guidance programmes 
in each Member State. More detailed work about each 
fleet is needed, examining each fleet's fishing possi­bilities in the light of the quotas available. This is the 
only way to give practical expression to the Com­
mission's proposed reduction for the whole of the EC's 
fishing fleets. 
2.6. Fishing in the waters of third countries 
2.6.1. The purpose of structural policy is to strike a 
balance between the EC's domestic resources and the 
fishing capacity of its fleets. From this point of view, 
fishing for resources located in third countries should 
be subject to restrictions other than those contained in 
the MGP. 
2.7. Aid 
2.7.1. Innovation 
2.7.1.1. Aid for renovation should give priority to 
innovative projects and those designed to improve 
safety, living and working conditions. 
2.7.2. Priority for restructuring 
2.7.2.1. However, while the imbalance between 
stocks and fishing effort remains serious, greater pri­
ority should be given to Member States' restructuring 
schemes with a view to striking a balance between 
fishing capacity and the stocks available. 
2.7.3. Avoid distortions in competition 
2.7.3.1. At the same time, vessels fishing in the same 
waters should not receive very different levels of con­
struction aid, as this could lead to distortions in compe­
tition. 
2.7.4. An inadequate budget 
2.7.4.1. It should also be noted that the measures for 
financing structural policy, laid down in the budget 
proposed in the amended Regulation (EEC) No 4028/ 
86, fall short of the new structural policy's stated aims 
and fail to meet the expectations raised by this policy. 
It is reasonable to hope that future budget allocations 
will bring about an improvement. 
No C 339/80 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 91 
2.8. Aquaculture 
2.8.1. A complementary activity 
2.8.1.1. Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 laid down a 
framework for Community structural measures for the 
next ten years, including greater emphasis on aquacul­
ture. Aquaculture should continue to be treated as 
an activity which complements (but cannot replace) 
traditional fishing. 
2.8.2. Priorities and conditions 
2.8.2.1. In-depth market analysis would be advisable 
before developing any particular aquaculture species. 
2.8.2.2. Priority support should go to projects involv­
ing people already working in the fisheries and aquacul­
ture sector, and in particular to reconversion projects. 
2.8.2.3. This type of activity requires a solid financial 
base, and co-operative associations could offer a suit­
able form for such undertakings. 
2.8.3. Added value 
2.8.3.1. The best prospects for aquaculture seem to 
be right at the end of the food chain, where varieties 
have a higher direct market value or can produce more 
added value. 
2.8.4. Financial allocations 
2.8.4.1. Greater support for aquaculture products 
should be provided within the framework of the Com­
mon Market Organization. 
2.8.4.2. This lends even greater weight to the com­
ments made in point 2.7.4. 
3. Common Market Organization 
3.1. Improve and simplify 
3.1.1. Although the Common Market Organization 
has proved itself since it was introduced by the Council 
in 1970, it should be adapted to developments since 
then. The Commission should look into ways of 
improving and simplifying the existing procedures, e.g. 
those governing carry-over and storage premiums. 3.2. Imports 
3.2.1. Market supply 
3.2.1.1. The Community market is still highly depen­
dent on imports, particularly for supplying the pro­
cessing industry. 
3.2.1.2. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that 
imports do not destabilize Community production. An 
analysis is needed of each species and the interactions. 
3.2.2. Implementation of health rules 
3.2.2.1. Competition between imported and EC 
products must not be distorted by laxer implementation 
of health rules for imported products. 
3.3. Restructuring or restriction of fishing activity 
3.3.1. At times when fleet capacity is undergoing 
restructuring or restrictions are placed on fishing 
activity, financial support policies should be devised 
offsetting low catches. 
4. Relations with third countries 
4.1. Principles currently in force 
4.1.1. Access to resources and to markets 
4.1.1.1. Under the new provisions of the law of the 
sea, and especially Article 62 of the United Nations 
Convention, access to fishing grounds and resources 
has been combined with the principle of equivalent 
compensation, as demanded by third countries, and 
has established a direct link between access and trade. 
Fishing agreements have thus become very important. 
4.1.2. No derogations 
4.1.2.1. The cornerstone of Community policy is 
access to fishing grounds in return for access to markets. 
This rule should be retained and applied in all future 
agreements, and certain derogations should be rectified. 
Payment of reduced (or zero) duties for access to Com­
munity markets is not a proper quid pro quo for access 
to the waters of the countries involved. 
31. 12. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 339/81 
4.2. Joint ventures 
4.2.1. Certains aspects of 'second generation' fishing 
agreements (joint ventures) may prove unsatisfactory 
in certains cases. Fishing for migratory stocks such as 
tuna is a case in point. 
5. Trade policy 
5.1. Compensation for access 
5.1.1. In too many cases, trade agreements give fish­
ery products from third countries access to the EC 
market because the EC want access to their markets 
in the aeronautical, automobile, railway, building or 
similar sectors. The fisheries sector is not adequately 
compensated for this access. 
Done at Brussels, 26 September 1991. 5.2. A bartering tool 
5.2.1. Fishing can no longer be used as a bartering 
tool, particularly when its very survival is under threat. 
5.3. Respect for principles 
5.3.1. Certain basic principles already invoked 
(access to waters, Community preference) should be 
clearly set out and properly respected. The EC is the 
world's leading consumer of fishery products, and con­
sumption is rising. The EC will attract products both 
from the developing countries and from nations which 
engage in trade without reciprocity. 
5.3.2. In certain cases, the EC's trade policy has 
allowed countries with a high standard of living and 
therefore potential clients (USA, Canada, Japan, Aus­
tralia, Norway, New Zealand, South Africa and Ice­
land, amongst others) to act simply as suppliers. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN