COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 22.07.1996 
COM(96) 363 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
on the application of the 
Community system for fisheries and aquaculture 

Contents 
Introduction 
Part I: Management of resources 
1-1 Application of the "traditional" management tools 
A. TACs and quotas 
B. Technical measures 
1-2 Introduction of the new management tools provided 
for in Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 
A. Licences, permits and regulation of fishing 
effort 
B. Definition of multiannual frameworks in the 
management of exploitation rates 
1-3 Community fisheries research 
1-4 The conservation of Mediterranean fishery resources 
Part II: Restructuring the fisheries sector 
Part III: Access to external sources of supply and the common 
market organisation 
A. Adjustment of the common market organisation 
B. External fisheries agreements 
Part IV: Monitoring the common fisheries policy 
A. The 'acquis' of the new control Regulation 
B. Implementing the control system 
Part V: The decision-making process 
A. Defining the decision-making process 
B. Implementing the decision-making process 
Conclusions 
Annexes 
INTRODUCTION 
1. Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing 
a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture1 provides that the 
Commission is to report, at least every three years, to Parliament, the Council 
and the Community bodies representing the fishing industry on the measures 
taken to implement the system. 
This report reviews the measures adopted over the first three years of 
application of the Regulation. 
This review must be seen against the background of the development of the 
common fisheries policy (CFP) since its principles were established in 1970 
and its foundations laid in 1983. It is therefore another element in the 
continuous unfolding of the CFP, and takes stock of the improvements 
introduced in 1992. 
2. The system established by that Regulation is the culmination of a wide-
ranging debate between 30 November 1990, the date of the first 
communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament2, and 
20 December 1992, the date on which it was adopted by the Council as the 
. new basic Regulation. 
The mid-term review of the CFP was part of a general discussion on the way 
it had developed over the short and medium term, and covered, as the 
Commission had wished, all components of the CFP: The discussion was 
• based on documents drawn up by the Commission, the starting point being the 
communication to the Council and Parliament. Following one year of 
consultations and an exchange of views between the various Community-
institutions, the national authorities and the industry, the communication paved 
Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (OJ No L 389, 31.12.1992). 
SEC(90) 2244 of 30 November 1990. 
the way for the Commission's Report to the Council and European Parliament 
on the Common Fisheries Policy of 4 December 1991, the "1991 Report"3. 
The "1991 Report" itself was also the subject of a wide-ranging debate by the 
same bodies, producing a definition of a general outline of policy most 
capable of securing the future of the fisheries sector and related activities over 
the next ten years and in particular to begin preparing it for "life after 2002". 
It concluded that there was a need for a global, integrated approach enabling 
all efforts to be focused on ensuring more effective regulation of the 
conditions for resource exploitation as a whole. 
There was close convergence of opinion on this approach, both within the 
Community bodies and in the industry itself. This consensus was reflected in 
the unanimous adoption of the Council's conclusions at its meeting on 3 April 
19924. 
The new approach took the form of the adoption of a new basic Regulation5, 
which introduced new fisheries management tools. Their application must be 
assessed in the light of the international and Community context which has 
influenced the common fisheries policy over the last three years. 
Over that period international cooperation between countries on the 
conservation and the rational management of marine resources intensified, 
with the coastal countries actively seeking to increase their influence not only 
on. resources in their own waters but also on the high seas. 
The negotiations in the various international organizations in which the . 
Community took pan to achieve a sustainable and rational management of 
fisheries- resources, more recently under the United Nations Agreement on 
straddling stocks and highly migratory species and the FAO Code of Conduct 
on responsible fishing, are evidence of this. The results achieved by the 
Commission have made it possible to consolidate the existing legal situation, 
SEC(91) 2288 of 4 December 1991. . 
Minutes of the Council meeting of 3 April 1992 - Doc 5763/92 - Pêche 103 
Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (OJ No L 389, 31.12.1992)! 
and have also shown the need for a strengthening of controls and international 
cooperation. 
Specifically for the Mediterranean, the foundations for a cooperation policy 
between the Community and all coastal states were laid as the outcome of the 
Diplomatic Conference on Fisheries Management held in Crete in December 
1994, the results of which will be carried forward at a second Diplomatic 
Conference at the end of 1996. 
The common fisheries policy has also been affected by developments in trade 
policy, themselves influenced by policy outside the fisheries sector, i.e. 
agreements (Uruguay Round) and unrelated matters in pursuit of other 
objectives (arrangements under the Generalised System of Preferences in 
connection with fighting drug trafficking). 
The price decline on the Community market in fishery products, which 
particularly affected the fisheries sector in 1993, has shown that the sector 
cannot escape the worldwide trend towards trade deregulation and 
globalization of markets. 
This international competition makes it all the more necessary to restructure 
the Community fleet to ensure its profitability. 
In addition, the reduction in fishing opportunities under certain fisheries 
agreements with non-member countries, itself due to the depletion of fishery 
resources, has underlined the need to develop greater cooperation and a higher 
level of partnership with these countries to exploit available resources and 
Contribute to the mutual development of local economies, 
4. At Community level, the period was marked by adjustments made to the 
accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal and by the accession of new 
Member States. 
Adjustment of the arrangements provided for in the Act of Accession of Spain 
and Portugal was also the subject of a very wide-ranging debate to which the 
Commission contributed with its Report to the Council and Parliament of 
23 December 19926, the "1992 Report". On this basis the Council decided, by 
means of three successive regulations7, that adjustments had to be made using 
the new management tools introduced by the CFP reform. These adjustments 
took the form of the introduction of a fishing-effort system applicable to 
Atlantic waters from 1 January 1996. 
The negotiations for the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden 
were conducted on the basis of negotiating instructions aimed at full 
acceptance of the "acquis communautaire" by the applicant countries. The 
negotiations led to transitional measures being adopted to achieve this 
objective, enabling the new Member States to become fully integrated into the 
CFP. 
In addition, the negotiations with Norway produced a package of transitional 
measures, which, if Norway had actually become a member, could ultimately 
have influenced subsequent developments in certain areas of the CFP such as 
controls and resource management. 
5. This international and Community context underlines the urgent need to apply 
the management tools laid down in the Community system. Therefore, the 
extent to which the objectives have been achieved should be examined. 
This need is all the greater given the Community fleet's excess capacity, 
resulting in overfishing and threatening the livelihoods of fishing businesses. 
All those involved in fisheries must realize that only a strategy designed to 
strike a balance between capacity and available resources, and to sustain this 
balance, will be capable of securing the industry's future. 
SEC(92) 2340 of 23 December 1992. 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1275/94, 30.5.1994. 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95, 27.3.1995. 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95, 15.6.1995. 
This examination should also cover the extent to which the measures 
necessary for applying the decisions taken have already been applied correctly 
at all levels of responsibility. 
* * 
* 
I. Management of resources 
1-1. Application of the "traditional" management tools 
A. TACs and quotas 
Within the framework of maintaining the current TAC and quota fixing 
mechanisms, and to help overcome the problems'highlighted in the "1991-
Report"8, the Commission systematically proposed fixing TACs at reduced 
exploitation levels on the basis of scientific advice (see Annex I). 
Some progress was achieved, making it possible in some cases to stop or slow 
down the increase in exploitation rates. 
Nevertheless, exploitation rates continue to be excessive (see Annex I) either 
as a result of the Council fixing TACs at levels that are too high or of 
fishermen fishing over quota. 
With the notable exception of North Sea roundfish (cod and haddock), the 
Council did not follow the Commission's line when, on the basis of scientific 
advice, it proposed reduced TAC levels. The fact that the TACs for North Sea 
roundfish were fixed at a level in line with scientific recommendations was 
considerable progress. However, this is still not enough, because no 
simultaneous corresponding reduction in fishing effort was achieved. The 
effort levels employed were consistently higher than necessary to catch the 
quotas. This led to fraud and discarding at sea. Nevertheless, an overall 
intensification of exploitation rates was avoided. This, combined with 
reproduction rates not quite as bad as before, made some recovery possible, 
although this was weak and highly relative (see Annex I). 
Report 1991 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament .on the common 
fisheries policy - Document SEC(91) 2288 final of 4 December 1991. 
9 
In the other sectors, TACs for many heavily overfished stocks continued to be 
fixed at excessive levels: What is more, some TAC reductions are deceptive 
because they are only a first step towards lowering TACs to the levels 
necessary for a balanced exploitation of resources, while TACs in the past 
were at much higher levels than catches. 
B. Technical measures 
The critical assessment which the Commission makes in its communication on 
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October 
1986 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery 
resources9 must be supplemented by an analysis of the progress achieved in 
the other areas covered by technical measures. 
Regulation (EEC) No 3094/8610 was updated regularly. In addition, the scope 
of Community technical measures was extended to areas not previously 
covered such as the Mediterranean, and hitherto unregulated fishing methods 
such as fixed gear. 
Lastly, Community legislation on technical matters specific to the North-West 
• Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Baltic was developed to take 
account of the recommendations made by international organizations, to which 
the Commission made an active contribution. 
Nevertheless, the significant improvements in technical measures must not 
• distract from the progress still to be made. 
10. Communication from the Commission to the Council on the implementation of technical measures 
in the CFP (COM(95) 669). 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October 1986 laying down certain technical measures 
for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ No L 288, 11.10.1986). 
10 
In its communication on the application of Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 
referred to above, the Commission proposes a substantial revision of technical 
measures to strengthen and simplify them and make them easier to monitor. 
To achieve this, the Communication suggests in particular that mesh sizes 
should be harmonized by fixing them not by geographical region but by 
fishery. This harmonization will apply in Zone III (Bay of Biscay and Iberian 
peninsula) and in the North Sea. 
The communication also proposes an extension of boxes to protect juveniles 
and greater selectivity of fishing gear. 
Following the discussions on this communication, at its meeting in December 
1995 the Council undertook to adopt a decision on the basis of a Commission 
proposal on this new approach to technical measures to be submitted to it 
before 1 June 1996. 
7-2. Introduction of the new management tools provided for in Regulation (EEC) 
No 3760/92 
! ri order to improve the traditional mechanisms for resource management, the 
* 1991 Report" underlined the need to combine fishing-effort management with 
catch management, and to define a multiannual decision-making framework. 
The Commission therefore put this new approach into practice as soon as 
possible. 
A. Licences, permits and regulation of fishing effort 
Before a management system for fishing effort could be introduced, it was 
necessary to define instruments to limit access to fishing in general and to 
certain fisheries in particular. This is why the first Commission proposals 
11 
covered fishing licences and permits, before turning to the introduction of 
specific arrangements for the management of fishing effort. 
The adoption of rules on licences granting access to commercial fishing, then 
rules on special fishing permits providing access to specific fisheries, was a 
decisive stage on the road to effective and transparent management of 
resources. These instruments were adopted in three successive Regulations11 
between 1993 and 1994 (see Annex IV). 
The second, equally important stage was the effective introduction of a 
fishing-effort management system. 
So far the system is restricted to the Shetland Box, but in line with its 
"1992 Report"12 on the adjustment of the arrangements for the accession of 
Spain and Portugal, the Commission suggested moving towards a general 
fishing-effort management system. 
Finally, after lengthy discussions, the Council decided to introduce fishing-
effort controls for the Atlantic from 1 January 199613. 
This system, based on no increase in overall fishing-effort levels, full 
exploitation of the Member States' fishing opportunities and maintaining the 
existing balance in sensitive areas, is intended to help get a grip on capacity 
and catches. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system 
laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences (OJ No L 341, 
31.12.1993). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down general provisions concerning 
special fishing permits (OJ No L 171, 06.07.1994). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 33 17/94 of 22.12.94 laying down general provisions concerning the 
authorization of fishing in the waters of a third country under a fisheries agreement (OJ No L 
350,31.12.1994). 
Report (1992) by the Commission to the Council and Parliament on the application of the Act 
of Accession of Spain and Portugal in the fisheries sector. Document SEC(92) 2340 final of 
23 December 1992. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing-effort 
relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ No L 71, 31.03.1995, p. 5.). 
14 This second stage will have to be introduced gradually, allowing termination 
of the transitional arrangements introduced on the accession of Sweden and 
Finland. Finally, the fishing-effort system will have to be fine-tuned to include 
provisions on access to certain fisheries by means of special fishing permits 
and to reconcile the need for effective effort management with full use by the 
Member States of their fishing opportunities based on the principle of relative 
stability. 
B. Definition of multiannual frameworks in the management of exploitation rates 
To date the Council has still not adopted the Commission's proposal defining 
objectives and medium-term management strategies although the proposal has 
been before it since 15 December 1993. This delay is detrimental to the 
effective management of marine resources, even though the proposal is 
integral to the terms of the current basic Regulation. 
Given the importance of defining such a framework, which was underlined in 
the "1991. Report" and recognized in Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, the 
Commission started making legislative proposals as early as 1993. 
Practical implementation of the decisions on TACs and quotas since 1992 has 
only confirmed the need to make the management, of resources more flexible 
and look .beyond the year ahead, making it possible for the industry to plan 
its activities and investments long term. 
As* a basis for the discussions on the introduction of these new management 
tools, the Commission forwarded a communication14 to the Council 
beforehand, analysing their suitability and limits. The communication was 
discussed by the Council, which accepted its general approach (November 
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EP: "The new components of the 
CFP and their practical implementation", (COM(93) 664, Brussels, 15 December 1993). 
13 
15 
16 1994). The Commission tabled two proposals to put these into operational 
practice, the first covering a definition of medium-term objectives and 
strategies15, the second introducing flexible quota utilization16. These two 
aspects are complementary, since they would make it possible to combine 
more ambitious medium-term action with greater flexibility in short-term 
management. In both cases the Council recognized the relevance of the 
underlying principles in the initial constructive discussions. Beyond the 
internal discussions on the CFP, the need for a definition of medium-term 
objectives and strategies was stressed in several international bodies, in 
connection with the definition of the code of conduct, and at the 
Intergovernmental Conference on the North Sea. In both cases the methods 
adopted are in line with the tools proposed by the Commission: a definition 
of spawning biomass thresholds and fishing mortality rate plans. 
The proposal on management strategies and objectives, was submitted to the 
Council in December 1993. 
Initially the Council showed a cautious interest (first half of 1994), then 
during its second discussion (second half of 1994) it was on the point of 
adopting it, with the proviso that the proposal should be transformed into a 
directive with some changes to the figures. 
Then in the first half of 1995 the Council rejected the proposal and in the 
second half of 1995 it refused to re-enter it on its agenda. Despite the 
Council's agreement on principle, the proposal therefore failed, not on 
substantive grounds but on objection to detail. It has now lapsed in terms of 
the timetable initially laid down (1994-1997). 
Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) fixing management objectives and strategies for certain 
fisheries or groups of fisheries for the period 1994 to 1997 (COM(93) 663 final of 15 December 
1993). 
Proposal for a Council Regulation introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management 
of TACs and quotas (COM(94) 583 final of 8 December 1994). 
14 
As regards the proposal on flexibility, it will have taken the Council two years 
to make technical adjustments, overcome its reservations on its innovatory 
nature and unanimously adopt it, with gradual introduction from 1997 to 1998. 
The Council will have to re-examine the proposal on management objectives 
and strategies. As a result of the link referred to above between regulating 
exploitation rates and changes in fishing capacities, this question will have to 
be re-addressed in the debate on MGP IV. 
1-3. Community fisheries research 
The management of fishery resources requires decisions to be taken on the 
basis of scientific analysis alone. Fisheries research is therefore of .great 
importance, its direction changing constantly in line with the needs of the 
common fisheries policy. Since the recommendations in the M1991 Report" and 
adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92, fisheries research has been 
intensified at Community and national level, with the emphasis on 
socio-economic aspects .and increased coordination of research projects at 
Community and international level. 
In the context of the fourth framework programme of European Community 
activities in the field of research, technological development and 
demonstration (1994-98), the Commission aims to provide, by means of 
Community funding for research projects, a solid base.for a balanced and 
sustainable exploitation of Community fishery resources and the future 
development of aquaculture. 
In addition, in order to have specific information to enable it to formulate its 
proposals for regulations, the Commission contributes to the funding of 
scientific and technical studies providing answers to specific questions, the 
results of which flow directly into the CFP. 
15 
17. Despite such Community encouragement, in the Commission's view the data 
collection necessary for implementation of the CFP is still inadequate. 
The existing mechanisms should be improved to ensure that the data to be 
reported by the Member States to the Commission are collected, and make 
them available to the scientific experts. 
Furthermore, the lack of coordination between the Member States and the 
Commission mus* be rectified and roles clarified by defining research 
priorities at Community level. 
Finally, the Commission would like to improve the dialogue between scientific 
experts and the world of fishing. To this end, it would like to see a greater 
flow of information between the Commission, the Member States and the 
industry and the distribution of the results of research to make them available 
to all. 
1-4. The Mediterranean fishery resources conservation system 
. As a result of the entry of Greece and Spain into the Community, as well as 
the alarming state of resources and the socio-economic importance of fishing 
for some coastal regions, as early as 1990 the Commission submitted a 
discussion paper to the Council with an outline fora common fisheries system 
in the Mediterranean17. 
This communication was aimed at implementing a conservation and 
management policy specifically for the Mediterranean. The conclusions in the 
communication were adopted unanimously by the Council. 
Communication from the Commission to the Council on an outline of a common fisheries system 
in the Mediterranean - discussion paper (SEC(90) 1136 final of 10 July 1990). 
16 
Since the "1991 Report" encouraging the adoption of a Community fisheries 
conservation system in the Mediterranean, substantial progress has been made 
in checking the depletion of certain fish stocks there. 
Following the discussions with the Community authorities and the industry on 
the general principles of a conservation and management policy specifically 
for the Mediterranean, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 
laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery 
resources in the Mediterranean, which entered into force in 199518. 
The Regulation is intended to improve the protection of resources and the 
environment by harmonizing certain existing regulations on the basis of 
current scientific knowledge and, where necessary, adopting new provisions 
to take account of the special features of the Mediterranean. It establishes 
conditions for the use and prohibition of certain types of fishing gear, 
restrictions on their technical specifications and minimum landing sizes for 
landed fish, as well as providing for exceptions to enable the system to be 
adopted gradually. 
Some Member States have encountered difficulties in implementing this 
Regulation, in particular with regard to compliance with provisions on 
mandatory fish sizes. 
The Commission has taken part in numerous meetings with the industry and 
scientific experts in order to collect data and information, enabling it to 
examine the matter and propose a satisfactory solution. 
This is just the first, but essential, step - particularly because there can be no 
progress without coordination with the non-EU countries fishing in the 
Mediterranean. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying down certain technical measures 
for the conservation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean. 
17 
The Member States bordering the Mediterranean, the Council and the 
Commission have taken a strong line on this matter, acting in complete 
unison. 
A Diplomatic Conference on fishery management in the Mediterranean was 
held in Crete in December 1994, culminating in the adoption of a Solemn 
Declaration on the Conservation and Management of the Fishery Resources 
of the Mediterranean under the terms of which those countries benefiting from 
the biological wealth of the Mediterranean undertake to cooperate on the 
protection and development of fishery resources in the region. 
With a view to strengthening cooperation between coastal states and the 
countries which fish there, the Commission is already organizing a second 
Diplomatic Conference on Fishery Management in the Mediterranean at the 
end of 1996. 
At the same time, the Community has intensified its cooperation with regional 
fisheries organizations operating in the Mediterranean, in particular the 
General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean. The Community has also 
taken the necessary steps to become a member of this organization soon. It 
has taken action to transpose some of the recommendations of the international 
organizations on resource management into Community legislation. 
18 
II. Restructuring the fisheries sector 
The framework for structural measures for fisheries and aquaculture has 
undergone a number of substantive changes over the past few years. 
Up to 1993, it was the Commission itself which selected investment projects 
. for the fleet, aquaculture and processing and marketing of products under 
Regulation (EEC) No 4028/8619. To qualify, investment projects had to satisfy 
a number of criteria on acceptability, conformity and eligibility of expenditure, 
and comply with certain technical and economic ratios. 
Since 1993, "fisheries" structural measures have been integrated into the 
reformed Structural Funds under Council Regulations (EEC) No 2080/93 and 
(EC) No 3699/9320. This makes it possible to delegate to the Member States 
major new responsibilities {"subsidiarity'") for selecting investment projects in 
the sector, provided they comply with the measures adopted within the 
framework of sectoral programming for fisheries {"partnership'"). Community 
financial assistance is also meant to comply with the principles of additional'ity 
and concentration of funds. 
From now on, it is in this new financial framework that restructuring measures 
in the sector, in particular for the fleet, will be implemented. 
In this respect the Commission's "1991 Report" already recommended a 
strengthening of the links between conservation measures and structural 
measures so that the latter could help reduce excessive fishing mortality by 
eliminating the Community fleet's overcapacity. 
19 
20 Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve 
.and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, as last amended by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3846/92 of 19 December 1992 (OJ No L 401, 31.12.1992) (repealed). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 lËying down-the criteria and 
arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector 
and the processing and marketing of its products. 
19 
These recommendations are to be found in Title II of Regulation (EEC) 
No 3760/92 on the management and monitoring of fishing activity, under 
which the Council must set, on a multiannual basis, objectives and detailed 
rules for restructuring the fisheries sector in order to achieve a balance on a 
sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation. 
The Commission therefore undertook to make this restructuring possible by 
adopting a series of legal and financial provisions. 
The adoption of binding measures to reduce fleet overcapacity was made 
possible by Council Decision 94/15/EC21, which enabled the multiannual 
guidance programmes (MGP III) to be approved. 
The MGP III programmes were drafted on the principles of transparency, 
equal treatment of the Member States and flexibility. 
However, with an average reduction of 7% of fleet power over five years, 
these programmes are not as ambitious as the Commission would have liked, 
all the more so since this percentage includes reductions that some countries 
did not manage to carry out under previous programmes and does not offset 
productivity increases due to technical progress. 
In its annual reports to the Council and Parliament on progress in achieving 
the targets of the multiannual guidance programmes (MGP III), the 
Commission notes that, in spite of the generally satisfactory results in relation 
to the objectives laid down, there are disparities between the Member States 
Council Decision 94/15/EC of 20 December 1993 relating to the objectives and detailed rules for 
restructuring the Community fisheries sector over the period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 
1996 with a view to achieving a lasting balance between the resources and their exploitation. (OJ 
No L 10, 14.1.1994). 
Council Decision 95/577/EC of 22 December 1995 concerning the objectives and detailed rules 
for restructuring the fisheries sector in Finland and Sweden over the period 1 January 1995 to 
31 December 1996 with a view to achieving a lasting balance between resources and their 
exploitation (OJ No L 326, 30.12.1995). 
20 
22 illustrated by the real difficulties some countries are experiencing in meeting 
the objectives or the obvious lack of will to meet them. 
Furthermore, in implementing MGP III, so far not one Member State has used 
the option of introducing fishing-activity reduction schemes eligible under it, 
even from among those countries which subscribe to the idea. 
Penalties are imposed for failure to comply with the objectives of MGP III. • 
The most stringent requirement for the Member States is their obligation not 
to introduce fishing vessel construction schemes or fleet modernization 
schemes involving an increase in fishing effort unless they have complied with 
the targets in their programme. 
Some Member States which did not meet the intermediate objectives of 
MGP III had to cease awarding national aid for modernization or the 
construction of new boats. 
The second penalty, which will be applied if the Commission establishes at 
the end of 1996 that a Member State has not met its final targets under 
MGP III, is the infringement procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty. •• • 
Nevertheless, in spite of these shortcomings and unlike the previous 
programmes (MGP I and MGP II), whose results were disappointing, 
MGP III22 has led to a decline in capacity (see Annex II). Although overall the 
result will be highly inadequate, MGP III will, among other things, have 
provided a general mechanism for monitoring and controlling changes in the 
Community fleet as a result of the instruments put in place (Community 
register and remeasurement of the fleet2'). 
23 Commission Decisions 92/588/EEC to 92/598/EEC of 21 December 1992 on multiannual 
guidance programmes for the fishing fleets for the period 1993 to 1996 (MGPs III). 
(OJ No L.401, 31.12.1992). 
Commission Decisions 96/73/EC and 96/74/EC of 22 December 1995 on a multiannual guidance 
programme for the fishing fleets of Sweden and Finland for the period 1995 to 1996 pursuant to 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 (OJ No L 14, 19.1.1996). 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 109/94 of 19 January 1994 concerning the fishing vessel register 
21 
24 MGP III will be succeeded by MGP IV which, on the basis of a new report 
by independent experts on the state of fish stocks and comments from the 
industry, will set new Community fleet restructuring targets in order to restore 
stocks and allow fishing businesses to recover financially. 
The.aim of MGP IV will be to effectively eliminate the chronic overcapacity 
of the fleet. 
In order to soften the socio-economic impact of the reduction of the 
Community fleet, the Commission proposed in 1986, at the time Regulation 
(EEC) No 4026/86 was adopted, that the scrapping premium should include 
a premium per crew member, but the Council rejected this accompanying 
social measure. 
Under the specific measures covered by Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, in 
1991 the Commission attempted to reintroduce specific accompanying social 
measures but again in vain. 
In order to cushion the impact of fleet restructuring measures on coastal 
communities in areas dependent on fishing, the Council adopted 
socio-economic measures24 in November 1995 in order to complement the 
fishing-effort adjustment measures with supporting social measures for 
workers, affected by restructuring (early-retirement schemes and voluntary 
severance grants). Attempts at introducing such measures had failed in the 
past, so they represent something quite new. 
of the Community (OJ No L 19, 22.1.1994). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3259/94 of 22 December 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 
2930/86 defining the characteristics of fishing vessels (OJ No L 339, 29.12.1994). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 laying down the criteria and 
arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector 
and the processing and marketing of its products (OJ No L 346, 31.12.93), as amended for the 
third time by Regulation (EC) No 2791/95 of 20 November 1995 (OJ No L 283, 25.11.1995). 
22 
A wide range of financial measures under the Structural Funds (FIFG, ERDF 
and ESF) is now available to accompany restructuring in the industry. A 
special Community Initiative for fisheries (PESCA) makes it possible to 
mobilize all Structural Fund measures in the designated areas dependent on 
fishing. 
In thé Commission's view, Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 and the financial 
provisions of the Structural Funds are an essential element which will make 
it possible to restructure the fleet in close harmony with resource conservation 
measures. However, the conditions in which restructuring is to be carried out 
must be better defined. The Council in particular will have to adopt 
appropriate measures so that the size of the fleet can be adjusted to the 
resources actually available. 
23 
III. Access to external sources of supply and the common market 
organisation 
A. Adjustment of the common market organisation 
In its communication on the crisis in the Community's fishing industry25, the 
Commission described and analysed in 1994 the structural handicaps of 
Community production. 
Examination of the market situation and the constraints typical of it makes 
efforts to adapt capacities to resource potential all the more pressing. 
The climate of international competition determined by the Community's 
international undertakings in the context of a globalised economy, the fact that 
production is more expensive in the Community than in some of its partners, 
and the serious decline in supplies to the Community market, all mean that 
Community output potential must be optimised while ensuring that supply and 
demand are better matched. 
Proposals to that effect were introduced by means of a reform of the common 
market organisation which entered into force in 199526 and which stresses the 
strengthening of the role of producer organisations and an expansion of their 
resources towards improvement of product quality and of their ability to 
intervene on the market. 
B. External fisheries agreements 
26 25 Communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament on the:crisis in the 
Community's fishing industry (COM (94) 335 final, 19.7.1994). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994 (OJ L 350, 31.12.1994) amending 
Regulation (EEC) N° 3759/92 on the common organisation of the market in fishery and 
aquaculture products. 
24 
On the basis of the "1991 report" the Council confirmed the importance of a 
broad network of appropriate fisheries agreements with non-member countries. 
The fisheries agreements represent 20% of Community production of seafood 
products, and are an important contribution to ensuring security of supply. 
* 
In addition to their political and economic importance towards the outside, the 
fisheries agreements allow the Community fleet access to resources other than 
those found in the Community's own fishing areas. 
Lastly, the agreements make it possible for the Commission, as part of the 
undertakings made under its exclusive powers, to fulfil the international 
commitments which it has subscribed to (responsible fishing etc.). 
The fishing agreements are not limited to this aspect; they also make it 
possible to increase cooperation between the Community and the non-member 
countries concerned. 
There are several basic types of fishery agreement: the traditional agreement 
with financial compensation and/or trade concessions or reciprocity, and the 
'second generation' agreement with provision for joint enterprises. 
The Community tries to make each of these proposed agreements match the 
socio-economic peculiarities of each country and include integrated partnership 
mechanisms which are more consistent in the iong term, and which apply to 
activities upstream and downstream of actual fishing so as to arrive at more 
lasting cooperation with third countries: 
25 
4) 
IV. Monitoring the common fisheries policy 
A. The 'acquis' of the new control Regulation 
Confronted with inadequacies in controls and non-compliance with the 
common fisheries policy, the Commission - in its 1991 Report and in its 
Report on monitoring implementation of the common fisheries policy27 - put 
forward proposals to reinforce monitoring and transparency. 
Following a thorough debate involving all the Community bodies and 
operators, the Council in 1993 adopted a new control regulation applicable to 
the CFP28. 
This new system provides for overall and integrated monitoring covering all 
aspects of the CFP and applying to all operators in the fishing sector. Under 
the new rules it is possible to monitor the activities of Community fishermen 
more closely regardless of which area they are fishing in. 
To make monitoring credible, the control Regulation requires Member States 
to apply dissuasive penalties. The new system also strengthens the 
Commission's institutional facilities so that it can fully exercise its function of 
supervision over the national fisheries inspectorates. 
Lastly, the system also opens the door to modernisation through the use of 
modern technology, in particular satellite-based continuous position-finding 
systems and computerised systems. 
27 
28 Commission Report to the Council and Parliament on monitoring implementation of the common 
fisheries policy. Document SEC(92) 394, 6.3.1992. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable 
to the common fisheries policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993),.as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
No2870/95of 8 December 1995 (OJ L 301, 14.12.1995). 
26 
In 1995, the control regime was amended, adding to the existing provisions 
so as to include measures aimed at the monitoring and inspection of fishing 
activities subject to fishing-effort restrictions. 
Alongside the new system, the Council adopted a new financial decision on 
a Community financial contribution29 whose scope and budget appropriations 
are commensurate with this increase in control duties. 
This regulatory framework gives Member States the legal and financial 
instruments to allow them to guarantee effective and transparent monitoring 
of fishing activities. 
B. Implementing the control system 
In its Report on monitoring the common fisheries policy30, the Commission 
noted the deficiencies in inspections carried out by Member States. 
In general terms the report notes Member States' delays in implementing the 
new control provisions. 
The low level of resources committed casts doubts on the effective application 
of the control Regulation by certain Member States even where they have 
called on Community financing to develop these resources. Some even lack 
the means to provide airborne monitoring, which greatly reduces the 
effectiveness of inspections at sea. With regard to the application of sanctions, 
there are major discrepancies within the Community in both the procedures 
used and the size of the penalties, and this is inducing a feeling of unequal 
29 
30 Council Decision 95/527/CE of 8 December 1995 on a Community financial contribution towards 
certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control 
systems applicable to. the common fisheries policy (OJ No L 301, 14.12.1995). 
Annual report from the Commission to the Council and Parliament on monitoring the common 
fisheries policy (COM (96) 100 final, 18.3.1996). 
27 
treatment among Community fishermen and a greater inclination to commit 
fraud. 
In addition, the lack of information transmitted by the Member States has 
stopped the Commission from evaluating the effectiveness of controls on 
markets, product transport and structural policy. 
Despite these shortcomings, the Commission feels that it is too early to give 
a definitive assess nent of the impact of the new control Regulation. Certain 
provisions concerning in particular computerisation and the introduction of a 
satellite position-finding system will apply only in 1996-97. In any case, this 
first report was only intended to help reduce the lack of transparency between 
Member States in fisheries control. 
The Commission hopes that Member States will note these shortcomings and 
be encouraged to cooperate in developing harmonised and increased levels of 
controls. 
The Commission for its part will adapt the utilisation of its own resources so 
as to achieve this objective. 
Nevertheless, this adjustment is likely to be restricted by the heavy burden 
inherent in controls in international waters (NAFO, driftnets). In this respect, 
the Commission hopes that the Member States concerned will promptly 
assume the duties which fall upon them. 
Irrespective of that problem, the Commission feels that from now on it should 
give priority to: 
validating, with a view to more transparency, the information 
transmitted by each Member State in the form of control reports and 
of indicators of resources; 
28 
taking into account the monitoring of the fields newly included in 
fisheries control at Community level: structural policy, in particular 
assessment of catch capacities, parallel monitoring of fishing effort, 
links with market monitoring, the possibility of inspections during 
transport, development of the possibilities of systematic cross-checks 
on the various sources of information against each other; 
the problems which, in each fishery, constitute a source of major 
infringements of Community rules likely to harm other Member States, 
such as the quota overruns in the North Sea and the Baltic and the 
ignoring of technical measures; 
coordination among the national authorities responsible for controls 
and between those authorities and the Commission. The faster 
implementation of new technologies (satellite monitoring, data-links, 
etc.) defines the first area of cooperation. But it is not the only one: 
coordination of measures at sea, as demonstrated- by the monitoring of 
the Atlantic tuna fisheries, requires intervention at Community level. 
The same is true of monitoring the catches of vessels fishing in the 
exclusive economic zone of one Member State and landing fish in the 
port of another Member State. Generally speaking, the Commission has 
an important role to play in the coordination process in order to 
encourage synergy and allay suspicion. 
Given a political will backed up by a general awareness, further essential and 
rapid progress on monitoring will be possible. This would make it possible for 
the common fisheries policy to achieve objectives which have so far remained 
out of reach but which experience has showed to be realistic. 
29 
V. The decision-making process 
A. Defining the decision-making process 
The "1991 report" stressed the need to share responsibilities between the 
Member States and the Commission with regard to both developing and 
implementing new rules. 
In this context, the Community's role was to be limited basically to 
establishing the principles and it would be up to the Member States to devise 
suitable procedures according to the specific nature of their legislative and 
administrative systems. 
With the same aim in mind, the report proposed simplifying the battery of 
rules in order to ensure transparency, a prerequisite for their better acceptance, 
and the decision-making process itself in order to slim down procedures. 
The Commission had proposed when Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 was 
adopted that there should be only two decision-making procedures in the 
context of management of exploitation rates, and it had urged the Council not 
to chose procedural methods likely to undermine the decisions in this area. 
Along these lines, the Commission put forward a proposal under which it 
would be the Council's task to adopt management objectives and strategies and 
to set the quota distribution keys among the Member States using the Article 
43 procedure (Council decision after consulting Parliament, on the basis of a 
Commission proposal) and the Commission's job would be to apply the 
Council Decisions automatically after receiving the opinion of the 
Management Committee. This would help to make the decision-making 
procedures more flexible and relieve the Council of the burden of technical 
dossiers which do not require any policy decisions from it. 
30 
Despite the flexibility shown by the Commission during the discussions in 
Council, the latter rejected the proposal and proposed maintaining the principle 
of annual Council Decisions by majority vote fixing TACs and quotas and 
fishing-effort ceilings. 
This failure to delegate decision-making to the Commission for the adoption 
of technical and repetitive decisions is hampering the work of the Council and 
very often results in delays in adopting measures vital to the management of 
fishing activities. 
B. Implementing the decision-making process 
Over the past few years, discussions on the implementation of the common 
fisheries policy have become more rational and now generate less passion. 
This underlines the greater political will that now exists on the part of 
Member States and an awareness of the need to establish a responsible and 
rational common fisheries policy. 
As an example, the process for fixing TACs is now largely devoid of drama 
and unanimity is usually achieved after a few hours of debate. 
Nevertheless, this progress should not obscure .the difficulty of passing from 
an agreement on general principles to actual decisions (see Annex IV). 
In some cases, Commission proposals based on recommendations from 
scientists or groups of independent experts are not agreed on and are amended 
by the Council to the detriment of an efficient and rational management of 
resources. 
The discrepancies between Commission proposal and final Council decision 
affect all levels of the common fisheries policy. 
31 
As regards conservation of resources, TACs are sometimes fixed at levels 
higher than those recommended by the Commission and the proposed 
technical and control measures are diluted by introducing stipulated time 
periods and special exemptions; the rules adopted for the Mediterranean are 
an obvious example. 
In the structural field, the capacity-reduction targets in the multiannual 
guidance programmes have been adjusted downward. 
It can also take longer to adopt decisions than originally intended; decisions 
are put off until the point comes when they cannot be delayed any further, 
with consequent difficulties for the fishing industry. 
Such delays are still occurring in all areas of the common policy. 
The most significant example is the delay in the Council's adopting the 
proposals on quota flexibility. The Council is still considering the objectives 
and management strategy proposed by the Commission in 1993, which arises 
directly from the basic Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92. 
Finally the Commission would like to point out that various proposals have 
become blocked which were requested by thé Council in the first place. For 
two years no majority could be found for the proposal on driftnets31, after 
which, in 1994, the Commission produced a communication reporting on 
driftnet fishing at the request of the Council together with a proposal covering 
the regulatory action to be taken. 
However, some of thèse negative tendencies have been palliated by a greater 
awareness of key issues within the industry itself and the constructive support 
of Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee in backing the 
31 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the use of large driftnets under the common fisheries policy 
(COMC94)50/5, 10.2.1995). •" -
'32 
relevance of various Commission proposals. The Commission has contributed 
to this trend by making an effort to be transparent at all levels, by staying 
alert to problems and solutions pointed out by different industry actors, and 
by organising seminars and meetings to keep the fishing industry informed and 
involve it more in the future development of the common policy. 
This increased responsibility in the industry for defining the goals of resource 
management must not be allowed to obscure the other side of the coin,, 
however, i.e. the industry's obligations under the management regime. 
* * 
CONCLUSIONS 
1. This assessment of the reporting period has shown that the results achieved so 
far in addressing the goals the Community has set itself provide ample 
justification for continuing with the efforts made since 1991 to strengthen the 
foundation's and improve the effectiveness of the 'acquis communautaire'. 
The progress achieved in conserving and managing resources has still not been 
enough. The new management tools are not becoming operational quickly 
. enough. The targets to reduce overcapacity have still not been attained. There 
are still several gaps in the implementation of the control mechanisms. 
We need therefore to look at the directions which must be taken to move the 
common fisheries policy forward, towards making the Community's fishing 
activities balanced and sustainable and therefore capable of producing a 
reasonable economic return. 
33 
2. We need to prepare the future course to be followed both in the short term, 
i.e. over the next three years, and in the medium term, the year 2002 being an 
special and symbolic date for the CFP; the course which will make possible 
a durable preparation for the long term. 
The 2002 deadline marks the expiry/renewal of three components • in the 
legislation currently in force: 
access to waters inside the 12-mile limit (Article 6 of the basic 
Regulation), 
the rules applying to the "Shetland Box" (Article 7 of the basic 
Regulation), 
the rules of access to the North Sea for vessels from Spain and 
Portugal (1985 Act of Accession) and from Sweden and Finland (1994 
Act of Accession). 
Before the deadline, these aspects of the CFP will have to be analysed and a 
report drawn up following the same procedure as in 1991. 
• On the first component, the Commission will make proposals to the Council 
for provisions to replace the current rules. If there is no Council decision 
before 31 December 2002, the rule restricting access to those waters will 
disappear. It seems unlikely, given the current state of affairs, that there will 
be a desire to modify this aspect of the 'acquis communautaire'. 
On the second, the absence of a Commission proposal or a Council decision 
before the same deadline would lead to a roll-forward of the existing 
arrangements. 
On the third point, the absence of a decision either during the transitional 
period or by the 2002 deadline would lead to the application of the 'acquis 
communautaire' as it currently exists, i.e. free access to waters on a non-
34 
discriminatory basis for all Member State fleets, access to resources being 
based on the principle of relative stability for regulated species and 
unrestricted for non-regulated species. 
The other aspects of the CFP, in particular certain fundamental principles such 
as relative stability, are not likely on the face of it be called into question. 
Changes can be made to them only if a formal political will to do so is 
expressed. 
The basic ingredients of the CFP's structural policy are covered by the current 
programming period under the Structural Funds, which ends on 31 December 
1999. It is likely that an MGP V exercise will succeed MGP IV but, unless 
the conditions for access to fisheries under the existing arrangements are 
radically altered, the progress of the MGPs should not be affected by the 2002 
deadline. 
Other non-fishing aspects may also affect progress, such as the results of the 
Intergovernmental Conference, future expansion of the Union or developments 
in international relations. 
3. The Commission considers that now, over the next three-year period, and not 
in the next millennium, is the time to intensify the efforts already undertaken 
to supplement and consolidate the existing structure so as to secure a long-
term improvement in the industry. 
The fundamental aims of the measures to be taken must be to avoid the 
collapse of fisheries by attaining a better match between available resources 
and capacities, in order to put Community fishing enterprises back on the road 
to profitability. These aims will have to be achieved using an approach which 
is not strictly economic but which will also have to be integrated into the 
overall development of regions dependent on. fishing, in particular as regards 
employment and taking into account environmental concerns. 
35 
The management tools relevant to the objectives adopted must be applied in 
full. Those for which legal instruments have already been adopted, such as the 
fishing-effort management scheme, must be implemented effectively. The next 
few years must be put to use in evaluating their results in the areas where they 
have been implemented, in particular the Atlantic and, if necessary, the Baltic. 
Expansion of these management instruments to other Community fishing 
zones, in particular the North Sea, will make it possible to complete the 
transitions provided for in the Acts of Accession for Spain and Portugal and 
Finland and Sweden. The Commission will, therefore, at the appropriate time, 
be proposing suitable fishing-effort management schemes for fisheries in the 
North Sea, for instance, and even the Mediterranean. 
Improvements to the use of the existing management instruments must 
continue, in close liaison with intensifying and improving scientific research. 
It would seem better to introduce catch-reducing measures at an early date 
time rather than waiting for certain stocks to deteriorate to such an extent that 
a moratorium on fishing has to be imposed, creating an extreme situation and 
one damaging to the survival of companies as well as to market stability and 
security of supply. 
These improvements must also cover technical measures. The measures to be 
taken, in close cooperation with the Member States and the industry, concern 
first of all the North Sea, the Mediterranean and Region III. 
Improving the management instruments means both better knowledge of the 
scientific and statistical data and better dissemination of this knowledge. This 
improvement' in the flow of information, to be made accessible to all 
interested parties, should encourage understanding and therefore acceptance 
of the proposed measures. 
The implementation of MGP IV during the coming months will be a crucial 
factor in finding an equilibrium between fishing opportunities and the capacity 
of the Community fleet, in order to break the spiral of overinvestment -
36 
overcapacity - excess costs, with its concomitant reductions in profitability and 
loss of activity for fishery businesses. The survival of fishing businesses, the 
safeguarding of jobs at sea and on land and therefore the future of the industry 
will depend on finding this balance. 
The adoption of an effective monitoring system, at all levels of responsibility. 
is the sine qua non for the success of a truly sustainable fisheries policy. 
Close attention will therefore have to be paid to improving the monitoring 
system as a whole to ensure its coherence, consistency and homogeneity. The 
opportunities offered by new technologies such as satellites will have to be 
exploited to the full and the best possible information flow must be ensured 
through computerised networks. Realisation of a powerful Community 
monitoring system does not mean stepping up Community intervention as 
such, but everybody's tasks and responsibilities should be clearly defined. 
The development of responsible, and therefore monitored, and environmentally 
sound fishing is at the heart of the international undertakings entered into by 
the Community within the United Nations and FAO over the past three years. 
The next few years must see their effective implementation both at internal 
and at international level. The environment must be integrated into these in a 
positive, not a negative way. Sustainability of fishing activities is only 
achievable if the environment is also protected; fishermen and traders must 
obviously have a positive, decisive role in this if these adjustments are to be 
carried through with proper account taken of fishing industry interests. 
In this context, close attention will have to be paid to the Mediterranean 
region. The CFP is less developed" here than in other regions of the 
Community and the state of resources is particularly worrying. In addition, 
international cooperation is particularly necessary here because' of its 
geography. However, we should make the point that nothing will be done 
without the manifest political will of the Member States concerned. 
37 
The Commission therefore calls on all those in the sector, at political, 
administrative and industry levels, to do all they can and must to put in place 
the elements of a fisheries policy which will guarantee that fishing itself has 
a future. 
The Commission believes that, to ensure both clarity in the political debate 
and effectiveness in the work of the institutions, only the major decisions 
should be taken at Council level after the opinions of Parliament and the 
Economic and Social Committee have been obtained. A decentralised 
decision-making process together with a system of regional consultation 
encouraging dialogue between representatives of the industry and scientific 
circles could usefully improve the operation of the CFP. Subsidiarity must be 
applied to this sector as broadly as possible, at all levels of responsibility. 
This also applies to rationalisation of funding, in particular sharing the burden 
between Community and national budgets, so as to ensure the best 
cost/effectiveness ratio. 
4. The results of this first three-year phase will condition the success of the 
process leading on preparations for the post-2002 period. 
If the next phase can be regarded as a period of consolidation, the one after 
it will probably focus on assessing the future challenges to the CFP and 
identifying the major issues for discussion. In this context, all those involved 
in the fisheries sector will once again need to define the directions to be 
explored in ensuring a balanced development of fisheries management, 
including the socio-economic aspects, the profitability of businesses, policy on 
employment and regional development, and an appraisal of the role that each 
party should play. 
On the basis of an open debate, it should then be possible to formalise the 
options chosen and arrive at the necessary decisions before 31 December 
2002. • . 
38 
The Commission hopes, as it tried to demonstrate in its 1991 report, that 
discussing the future of fishing can go on being a lively affair without 
becoming overladen with emotion. 
39 
ANNEX I 
Changes in TACs over the reporting period 
40 
ANALYSIS OF 1996 TAC proposal and evaluation of the status of stocks 
based on the most recent assessment 
NOTES: 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
not available: 
•ÇK Decisions depend on consullalion wilh third countries or international organisations 
Part of the TAC available to Member Stales 
As roported by Member Slates 
No catch forecast available 
Either not provfded or not useful In terms of TAC 
STATUS: 1= lightly exploited; 2= fully exploited; 3a heavely exploited; A- risk of depleatlon; 
F= fluctuating; U= unknown; U/2*« unknown, but presumed, fully exploited; 
U/3** unknown, but presumed heavely exploited. 
Assessment quality: ^~ good analytic assessment; 2= medium quality Information; 
3= little or nothing known 
c W3lli,^pwln\33\lac90\analysl$ Page 1 
Overzicht van de bestanden waaruit in 1995 meer dan 5 000 ton door communautaire vaartuigen is gevangen 
Soort 
Haring 
-
Ansjovis 
Kabeljauw 
Schartong 
Zeedyivel 
Schelvis 
Wijting 
Heek 
Blauwe wijting 
Langoustine Zone 1994 
TAC(1) Vangst 1995 
Voorstel Com-
missie(1) jTAC(1) Vangst(2) Raming 1995 
Toestand 
best and Kwaliteit 
raming 1996 
Aanbeveling 
ACFM of STECF Voorstel 
Commissie(l) Basis TAC(1) %verschil 
voorstel 
rjiEn^. .•^:^^;:^^3 Kî^^y r^afcj i^^Ur:W-K^ ira->id sy^Mfesa ESir^k^^ ^.:^^%^3 lyio^aiimu^^Hiu^ ^ v .^it'^^ J a^^ii^xi;-ii^ ^ ^^u^ L ; : ;. .:.,^3 
Illbc^j^^^ltiftf'S 
llalVabiu*::•••: : :• 
IVc Vlld 
Vb VlaN, Vlb 
VlaS, Vllbc 
Vllghj 
VIII 
IX, X, CECAF 121450 
257950 
50000 
55140 
28000 
21000 
30000 
12000 #55001 
242736 
42079 
52125 
27827 
18901 
26772 
1393 *t$283200 
262400 
50000 
55140 
28000 
21000 
30000 
12000 283200 
262400 
50000 
70140 
28000 
21000 
33000 
12000 H$l 77813 
•'«1258222 
42919 
62468 
26659 
18325 
28515 
7559 *gstmr 
;3V 
N/3* 
1 
2 
. 3 
F 
N #F$l/2g$ 
Ml --.-. 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
3 pnn s 3f!2 ni 3 •rnïfô j^iO^itfirtfr*] fi i ^^rfTtWTÏTi W WAffK*} F$£i$Mftl ' 
"VF-«ilnJ50-%iv.!i^ 
niet beschikbaar 
niet beschikbaar 
récente niveaus 
F min 60 % 
niet beschikbaar 
niet beschikbaar ?••&• 172230 
50000 
70140 
28000 
15100 
33000 
12000 als oVereengek; 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
F min 20 % 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 «4*172230 
50000 
76710 
28000 
16500 
33000 
12000 ""•1*. -0,0 
0,0 
9.4 
0,0 
9,3 
0,0 
0,0 
MP^^^^B^^ Ilia Skaaerrak # u 
Ilia Kattegat 13095 
4040 '12297 
4106 ii'ri9350| 49350 ^18969 
7200| 7200 6247 w*'3i>*?| «fc?24**| •fflêttfciçfiik&àatf 
3 1 2 | F min 30% *$#H^222NHab.&Vtl^^ 
6700| TAC 1995 | 7700| 14,9 
BIEgELi&^^K^^^ 
Ha IV&*,*<-* ., -> 
Vb VI XII XIV 
VII ex. Vila 
VII Vlllahsamen 
VII 
Vb VI XII XIV 
VII Vlllab samen 
VII 
Vlllabd 93070 
13000 
17000 
20330 
18000 
8600 
23800 
18500 
5300 78798 
10210 
15375 
13026 
12072 
6484 
20285 
15451 
4834 V-'?$ 108600 
13000 
17000 
20330 
18000 
8600 
21400 
16630 
4770 108600 
13000 
17000 
22590 
20000 
8600 
23150 
18000 
L5150 §?*103563 
9726 
17744 
15428 
13918 
6437 
24266 
18535 
5731 .J,-3/4<\ 
4 
3/4 
2 
2 
2/3 
2 
2 
2 i ':-\p># 
1/2 
1/2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 <tfpttiirraoa6*jt' 
F min 20 % 
niet beschikbaar 
geen verhoging F 
als hierboven 
récente niveâus 
geen verhoging F 
als hierboven 
als hierboven •-ft'J 116900 
13000 
17000 
16600 
14700 
8600 
30300 
23560 
6740 als overwngék. 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
st.quo voorspelc 
als hierboven 
TAC 1995 
st.quo voorspelc 
als hierboven 
als hierboven •#916900 
13000 
20000 
21200 
19000 
8600 
30300 
23560 
6740 ^«F^'10,0 
0,0 
17,6 
27,7 
29,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
QO^^&IJIS uwumtffl mm*&^ï&&}mmm mi&mmmm ead^H^^ Vb VI XII XIV J 21000 
VII VIIIIX X CECAF| 6000 131741 20000 
48581 6000 21000 
6000 17836 
6464 3 
3 1 1 aanzienl.verlaging 
1 | niet beschikbaar 22900 
6000 F min 20 % 
TAC .1995 22900 
7000 0,0 
16,7 
ll^rcu^iiM f 1-wmttM ^ 
Vb VI XII XIV 
Vllb-k 
N. stock (ll-Vlllab) 
Vb VI VII XII XIV 
Vlllabde 
Vlllc IX X CECAF 
Vb VI VII Vlllab 
Vlllc IX X CECAF 
lia IV 
Vb VI XII XIV 
VII 6800 
29000 
60000 
33550 
22490 
11500 
113000 
55000 
35000 
12600 
20000 6063 
26743 
42190 
21495 
18147 
5372 
31131 
32289 
13403 
11362 
16358 6800 
31000 
31000 
18550 
12370 
5300 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
20000 6800 
31000 
55120 
30910 
20620 
10000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
20000 6275 
28266 
46946 
24946 
20029 
7063 
31954 
35552 
13863 
12788 
18153 3/4 
3 
4 
•• 
" 
4 
" 
M 
1/2 
3 
3 2 
2 
1/2 
" 
•• 
2 
" 
" 
2 
2 
2 aanzienl.verlaging 
niet beschikbaar 
F min 30 % 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 
laagst mogel.niv. 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 10000 
25000 
43100 
24170 
16120 
7000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
23000 F min 20 % 
TAC 1995(xxx) 
F min 20 % 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 
F min 20 % 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 10000 
28000 
51000 
28660 
19120 
9000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
23000 0,0 
12,0 
18.3 
18,6 
18,6 
28,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
Page 1 
Page 2 
HAKE Northern Slock 
Recruitment Age 0 and SSB 
600 -r 
200 
150 
+ 100 2o 
Years 
Recruitment Age 0 ' — Spawning Stock Biomass 
Landings and Fishing Mortality Age 1-4 
GE3 Landings 
L 'Fishing Mortality 
Age 1-4 erf= escape rate to fisheries : 
tep = taux d'échappement à la pèche 
75 % ->Fm=0.298 
50 Vo ->Fm=0.6'93 
25 %->Fm= 1,386 
,o.nf... IACO ACTW (1995^ 44- European ComnV.ssion-XlV/C/l -FO 
Plaice NSca 
Recruitment Age 0 and SSB 
1400 -r 
1200 4-
£ 400 
^ Recruitment —-
Age 0 "Spawning 
Stock Biomass 
Landings and Fishing Mortality Age 2-10 
180 «r 
160 + 
U0 + 
£ 120 + 
2 100 + 
80 + 
ë -60 + 
40 + 
2o+ra 
e>ooococ3oq3ocr>o>o> oiooocnocricicncnocn 
Lc f^^Pi Landings "Fishing Mortality 1 
Age 4-8 I erf= escape rate to fisheries : 
tep = taux d'échappement à la pèche 
75 % ->Fm=0.298 
50 % ->Fm=0.693 
25 %->Fm= 1.385 r-~ t 
Source : ICES. ACFM (1995) if European Couinhrr.iOn-XlV/r./'. 
CO0_r\!onh Sea (IV) 
Recruitment Aae 1 and SSB 
1000 -T-
900 + 
'.Recruitment Age 1 —'-Spawning Stock Biomass. 
Landings and Fishing Mortality Age 2-8 
350-T-
B5Z3J Landings 'Fishing f-'onality 
Age 2-5 erf= escape rate to fisheries : 
tep = taux d'échappement à la pêche 
75 % ->Fm=0.298 
50%->Fm=0.693 
25 %->Fm=1.386 
.o.j.r<. ICC S AC.Ff«A(l995) % 
ANNEX n 
Changes in the Community fleet 
measured against MAGP targets (1984-95) 
% of targets 
in 1986 35 
1987 1988 ig89 • ^f****?^^ 
1S-:TU -jgai -QQ2 -nn- « 
19-2 199<9 1994 ig95 ^ actual situation 
targets 
year 
The diagram shows changes in the Community fleet measured against the targets of MAGPs 
I, II and III, expressed in kW of engine power, for the period from 1984 to 1995. After several 
years where the actual situation was well out of step with the targets (1984 to 198-7), the 
situation then seems to right itself as the two graphs converge rapidly towards a meeting of 
the MAGP III targets. This trend would be even clearer if gross register tonnes (GRT) had 
been chosen as the measure for both real situation and targets, since these objectives have 
been better met. 
44 
ANNEX III 
Community fishing areas 
<8 
JURISDICTIONAL CLAIMS OF" EU MEMBER STATES 
20V 10° 
Fie. -.Outer bounds of jurisdictional claims of EC member states (heavy dashed line) 
which define EC domestic waters in the Northeast Atlantic, and ICES Statistical Areas. 
(Depth contours are 200 m -solid.Vine, 1000 m - fmedashed line.) , . 
4? 
ANNEX IV ' 
Legislative work from 1992 to mid-1996 
Implementation of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture 
V Subject 
I 
Management of 
resources 
1-1 
TACs and quotas Commission proposal 
Proposal of 23.11.95 (COM(95) 
615/2, 5.12.95), supplemented 
by delegation procedure on 
19.12.95 (COM(95) 741/1, 
21.12.95) laying down TACS 
for 1996 and certain conditions 
under which they may be 
fished Council Decision 
Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 Dec. 
95 fixing, for certain fish stocks and 
groups of fish stocks, the total allowable 
catches for 1996 and certain conditions 
under which they may be fished (OJ No 
L 330, 30.12.95, p.l). Comments 
On a number of stocks for which the Commission had 
proposed significant TAC reductions in view of their 
deterioration, the Council has preferred deferring the 
reductions until later, worsening the situation of these 
stocks. 
Some of these TACs involve a biological risk (mackerel, 
herring, plaice, hake). 
For the others, the increased TACs will mean serious 
declines in fishing opportunities in the short term (sole, 
megrim, coalfish). 
1-2 
Fishing licences, special 
fishing permits, 
authorization of fishing 
under fisheries 
agreements Proposal of 15.10.93 for a 
Council Regulation establishing 
a Community system of fishing 
licences 
(OJNoC 310, 16.11.93) - Council Regulation (EEC) No 
3690/93 of 20 Dec. 1993 
establishing a Community system 
laying down rules for the minimum 
information to be contained in 
fishing licences (OJ No L 341, 
31.12.93) 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 
1627/94 of 27 June 1994 laying 
down general provisions concerning 
special fishing permits (OJ No L 
171,6.7.1994) 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 
3317/9.4 of 22 Dec. 1994 laying 
down general provisions concerning 
the authorization of fishing in the 
waters of a third country under a 
fisheries agreement (OJ No L 350, 
31.12.94) - Delay in adoption of the management instruments by 
Council. The Council had to adopt three decisions within 
one year to meet deadlines. 
- The Council adopted the Commission's proposal without 
substantive changes, which shows that the Council takes 
some time to overcome its reluctance to consider 
innovatory proposals. 
1-3 
Management of fishing 
effort 
1-4 
Flexible quota 
management 
1-5 
Management aims and 
strategies - Proposal for a Council 
Regulation (EC) 
establishing the rules for 
access to certain 
Community fishing areas 
and resources 
(COM(94) 308/F, 13.7.94) 
Proposal for a Council 
Regulation establishing a 
system for the management 
of fishing effort relating to 
certain Community fishing 
areas and resources 
(COM(95) 237, 6.4.1995) 
Proposal of 8.12.1994 for a 
Council Regulation introducing 
additional conditions for year-
to-year management of TACs 
and quotas 
(COM (94) 583 final, 8.12.94) 
Proposal of 15.12.1993 for a 
Council Regulation fixing 
management objectives and 
strategies for certain fisheries 
or groups of fisheries for the 
period 1994 to 1997 
(COM (93)663 final, 15.12.93) - Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 
of 27.3.95 on the management of the 
fishing effort relating to certain 
Community fishing areas and 
resources (OJ No L 71, 31.03.95, 
P-5). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 
2027/95 of 15.6.1995 establishing a 
system for the management of 
fishing effort relating to certain 
Community fishing areas and 
resources 
(OJ No L 199, 24.8.95, p. 1). 
The Council adopted the Regulation 
introducing additional conditions for 
year-to-year management of TACs and 
quotas on 22 April 1996. (Not yet 
published in the OJ) 
Adoption consequence review of the 
Regulation on Flexibility - The Council rejected the Commission's proposal based on 
standard vessel-days at sea (SVDs) and drew up a 
compromise based on days spent in an area, which is 
multiplied by engine power expressed in kW to give 
fishing effort. 
The Council took two years and two regulations to 
introduce a fishing-effort scheme. 
The final decision resembles the Commission's original 
proposal in substance, the changes being mainly ones of 
form. 
The Council decided to reduce the amount of year-to-year 
flexibility. 
The penalties proposed by the Commission were reduced 
by the Council. 
The Council will have taken almost two years to introduce 
technical adjustments and to overcome its reserve about 
the innovatory nature of the Commission proposal. 
Delay of more than two years in adopting rules which are 
meant to facilitate the management of fishing activities by 
more planning of these activities. 
The proposal has become bogged down in the Council, 
which has buried it under objections to details that do not 
affect the substance. 
1-6 
Driftnets 
1-7 
Mediterranean fisheries Proposal for a Regulation of 
8.4.1994 on the use of large 
driftnets under the common 
fisheries policy 
(COM(94) 131 final, 08.04.94) 
Proposal for a Regulation of 
12.11.93 laying down certain 
technical measures for the 
conservation of fishery 
resources in the Mediterraneann 
(COM (93) 306, 12.11.93, 
p. 10) Still before the Council 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 of 
27.6.1994 laying down certain technical 
measures for the conservation of fishery 
resources in the Mediterranean 
(OJNoL 171,6.7.94, p.l). This proposal was originally made at the request of the 
Council itself. 
Compared with the Commission's proposal, the Council has 
softened some provisions by introducing exemptions over 
various periods (some running up to 2002). 
& 
H. 
Restructuring of the 
fisheries sector 
-Pi. Proposal of 9.11.93 for a 
Council Decision relating to 
the objectives and detailed 
rules for restructuring the 
Community fisheries sector 
over the period I January 
1994 to 31 December 1996 
with a view to achieving a 
lasting balance between the 
resources and their 
exploitation (COM(93) 544, 
9.11.93) Council Decision 94/15/EC of 20.12.93 
relating to the objectives and detailed 
rules for restructuring the Community 
fisheries sector over the period 1 
January 1994 to 31 December 1996 with 
a view to achieving a lasting balance 
between the resources and their 
exploitation 
(OJNo L 10, 14.1.1994) The Commission's original proposals were watered down by 
the Council (cut of 40% in required capacity reductions). 
- demersal stocks 
- benthic stocks 
- pelagic stocks Commission 
- 30% 
- 20% 
-0% Council 
- 20% 
- 15% 
-0% 
III 
Monitoring 
III. 1 
Monitoring of the 
common fisheries policy 
III.2 
Control of fishing effort 
• Proposal of29.10.92 fora 
Council Regulation establishing 
a control system applicable to 
the common fisheries policy 
(COM(92) 392 final, 29.10.92) 
Proposal of 13.7.1994 for a 
Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
establishing a control system 
applicable to the common 
fisheries policy 
(COM (94) 309 final, 13.7.94) 
Proposal of 12.6.1995 for a 
Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
establishing a control system 
applicable to the common 
fisheries policy 
(COM(95)256 final, 12.6.95) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 
of 12.10.1993 establishing a control 
system applicable to the common 
fisheries policy 
(OJNo L 261, 20.10.93) 
The Council rejected this proposal. 
.Council Regulation (EC) No 2870/95 of 
8 Dec. 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 2847/93 establishing a control 
system applicable to the common 
fisheries policy 
(OJ No L 301, 14.12.95, p.l) The Council decided 
- to defer until 1.1.96, then to 1.7.96, its decision 
establishing a system of continuous position-finding by 
satellite 
- to adopt at a later date the list of species to be recorded in 
log books 
- to defer until 1.1.99 the application of certain provisions 
to fishing operations in the Mediterranean 
- to drop the Commission"^ proposal to suspend or reduce 
the Community's financial assistance is cases where the 
'control' Regulation is not complied with. 
- In its compromise of December 1994, subsequently 
transposed into Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 
1995 introducing a fishing-effort scheme, the Council 
redefined the content of the monitoring rules on fishing 
effort. 
The Council has extended the hail system to all fisheries, 
whereas in the Commission's proposal the hail system applied 
in the Irish Sea and otherwise according to fishery. 
Similarly, the Council has introduced from 1998 the rule that 
each vessel must report its catches, which was not provided 
for in the proposal. 
At the same time, the Council decided to defer until 30 June 
1997 a decision on integrated data management system 
(networks). 
In addition, it has softened the application of the hail system 
by allowing exemptions for certain types of fleet, 
complicating the application of the hail system and involving 
extra costs. 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 363 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-364-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-07171-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg