OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Decision on a Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the common fisheries policy
Date: 1995-10-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU aid, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing regulations













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1168 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1168

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Decision on a Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the common fisheries policy  


Official Journal C 018 , 22/01/1996 P. 0100 





Opinion on the proposal  for a Council Decision on a Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred  by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the common  fisheries policy ()(96/C 18/17)On 6  July 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic  and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,  on the above-mentioned proposal. The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Pricolo as Rapporteur-General for its  Opinion. At its 329th Plenary Session (meeting of 25  October 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion with no dissenting votes and two abstentions. 1. The proposal provides for a Council decision to extend the Community's financial  contribution towards Member States' expenditure on implementing the CFP's monitoring and control  system. 1.1. The proposal establishes the provisions for a Community contribution to such expenditure for  the period from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000. 2. General comments2.1. The Committee broadly supports the thinking behind the proposal. 2.2. The Committee has on a numer of occasions emphasized that control of fishing activities is a  vital aspect of the CFP. Effective, fair and transparent controls can improve compliance with the  present rules, reduce the wastage caused by overfishing and help ensure the survival of this sector  of the Community economy. 2.3. Action is needed to remedy the shortcomings which currently surround the control of third  country vessels exporting or landing in the EU immature fish or produce which does not comply with  health regulations. 2.4. The Committee takes the view that control policy can only be successful if the Member States  implement it fairly and effectively. However, given the disparities which still exist, the  Committee considers that the desired level of efficacy will only be achieved by increasing the  powers and means of control of the relevant Community authorities. 2.5. It would be helpful if Member States could harmonize their sanctions against infractions, as  these currently differ. 2.5.1. The Committee considers that in the interests of greater fairness and neutrality, monitoring  and controls at sea should gradually be brought under Community responsibility. 2.6. The Committee recognizes the value of the Community contribution to certain expenditure  incurred by Member States to meet their control obligations and to ensure compliance with  obligations of Community interest. 2.7. Large tonnage vessels being definitively laid up could be used for monitoring, once they have  been fitted out. This would provide considerable financial savings. 2.7.1. However, the Committee emphasizes that controls can only be improved and made more effective  at Community level if adequate financial resources are allocated to them. Despite a modest  improvement, the Community budget allocation for control activities remains inadequate, and is  clearly out of step with the sums which some of our competitors allocate to them. 2.8. The new CFP control system enshrined in Regulation 2847/93 lays down new obligations for the  Member States, extending to structures and markets, Mediterranean fisheries, and fishing by  Community vessels in both third-country and international waters. 2.8.1. Although the budget allocation has been increased, it will be difficult to meet the desired  objectives in full, particularly bearing in mind the recent enlargement of the EU and the fact that  ECU 2 000 000 of the annual budget for funding Member States' expenditure in this area has been  earmarked to meet Council commitments to one Member State. 2.8.2. In order to allow Member States to assume their Community obligations regarding controls and  organize the related investments with certainty, the Committee calls for greater flexibility in the  administration of the available funds. 2.9. The Committee feels that the major change which the Commission has made in the percentage of  the Community contribution covering the purchase of the physical (sea- and air-based) means of  control is not justified, because it is precisely these means which place the heaviest budgetary  burden on the Member States. In some of them, this burden may be disproportionate. 2.9.1. The Committee would like the percentage of the Community contribution to remain the same as  in the earlier Council Decision 89/631. 2.10. The EU is not a uniform community in development terms. A number of regions, notably those  covered by Objective 1, suffer various imbalances and difficulties. These regions, like those which  are particularly reliant on fisheries, require special attention from the EU. 2.10.1. For those working in the sector to accept the control measures, they must be fair and  transparent so that no-one feels discriminated against or the target of more stringent controls.  The EU must see that appropriate measures are taken to boost fishermen's confidence in the control  measures and in the EU's action, which must guarantee equal treatment for all. 2.10.2. Without wishing to question the Council's commitment to a Member State (in the present  case, Ireland), the Committee considers that the Community budget allocation should be increased by  the amount of the additional financial support for Ireland. 3. Specific comments3.1. Article  1(2)The words 'national authorities' should be replaced by  'relevant authorities'. 3.2. Article  1(3)Without prejudice to the comments set out in 2.8.1 above, the sum should be  increased by the annual sum allocated to Ireland. 3.3. Article  4(1a)The word 'forward' should be added before 'programme'. 3.4. Article  5(1)The list of information in point 3 of the Annex should be redrafted so as to  avoid additional red tape. Some of the requirements listed are impossible. Done at Brussels, 25  October 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C 186  of 20.7. 1995, p. 9.