[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 29.6.2005

SEC(2005) 840

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the : Communication from the Commission : Launching a debate on a Community approach towards eco-labelling schemes for fisheries products IMPACT ASSESSMENT {COM(2005)275 final}

1. WHAT ISSUE/ PROBLEM IS THE POLICY/PROPOSAL EXPECTED TO TACKLE?

By way of this Communication, it is intended to address the issue of eco-labelling for fishery products as a means of integrating environmental protection concerns into the fishery sector. As the issue of eco-labelling has generated plenty of controversy, a meaningful and in-depth debate at Community level is called for.

An increasing number of "eco-labelled" products have emerged. This raises important questions of competition (mutual recognition of eco-labelled products), trade (unjustified barriers to trade) and consumer protection policies (misleading schemes). In the absence of a clear Community approach to the marketing of eco-labelled products, the risk is that the Community might have to deal ex-post with the negative consequences of the existence of conflicting or inadequate schemes leading to possibly ensuing adverse effects on the markets and/or the sound conservation of fish stocks. This might potentially affect the whole value chain from fishermen to processors and retailers, as well as the consumers.

2. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS - POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE - EXPECTED FROM THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS IDENTIFIED?

The expected positive and negative impacts have been analysed option by option, particularly in terms of economic, social and environmental consequences. Whatever option is considered, eco-labelling schemes potentially bear with them impacts as follows:

- environmental impact by inducing producers, and policy makers, to move towards more responsible fishing practices,

- social impact on the ability of consumers to make informed decisions and on governance and participation in the fishery sector in terms of better stakeholder and consumer involvement,

- and economic impact on EU and international fish markets, on competitiveness and on research and innovation.

Nevertheless the precise nature of these impacts will depend of the option chosen eventually. It is almost impossible to properly weigh them given that the intended debate on eco-labelling is expected to bring about a good many relevant elements.

It is clear, however, that the additional requirements of certification will in many cases make industry and business bear additional costs when applying for eco-labelling certification. The necessity to keep those costs at a level which allows open access to SMEs and small case fisheries should be a key objective of any Community approach to eco-labelling.

Moreover even though the implementation of eco-labelling will also carry with it some additional cost for the consumer, it is still expected to increase confidence in eco-labelled fishery products and to facilitate proper consumer choice. It is impossible to measure this impact at this juncture, due to the uncertainty in both the hypothetical consumer attitude, and the hedonic price as it is called in economics (i.e. the price the consumer is ready to pay for a better quality).

Finally one should also consider that in a situation where nearly 2/3 of the European stocks are outside safe biological limits, it could well be that eco-labels will at a first stage benefit imported fishery products coming from countries which already have a longer history in the handling of novel concepts of fisheries management.

No severe impacts on a particular social group, economic sub-sector or region are to be expected.

External impacts on developing countries have been considered and account has been taken of the Community's commitment to the Doha Development Agenda and of the requirements of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. It should finally be considered that the debate will consolidate the position of the Community in the ongoing FAO process on eco-labelling.

In the long run, eco-labelling is expected to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the fisheries.

3. WHAT ARE THE MAIN POLICY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO REACH THE OBJECTIVE?

Three options for a possible Community approach are presented and analysed : (1) no-action, (2) creation of a single Community scheme and (3) establishment of minimum requirements for eco-labelling schemes. Negative and positive impacts for conservation, trade, and consumer policy have been considered. These elements should guide the debate.

Considering the divergence of opinions amongst the Members States in the field of eco-labelling, it has been judged more appropriate to launch a debate before selecting one particular option.

4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

While the Communication will launch a debate with the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, consultation of the European Economic Area members, the scientific community, appropriate international fora, representatives of the fishery sector and of consumers is also intended.

5. COMMISSION DRAFT PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION

By way of this Communication, the Commission clearly chooses to involve the Member States and Community policy makers, producers and stakeholders in the selection of the most appropriate Community approach to eco-labelling of fishery products. Three options are considered and a preference for at least the establishment of minimal requirements for eco-labelling schemes at Community level is expressed.