OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the conservation of fishery resources and fishing rights
Date: 1995-11-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing rights













EUR-Lex - 51995IE1302 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995IE1302

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the conservation of fishery resources and fishing rights  


Official Journal C 039 , 12/02/1996 P. 0032 





Opinion on the conservation of fishery resources and fishing rights(96/C 39/07)On 27   April 1995, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of its  Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an Opinion on the conservation of fishery resources and  fishing rights. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work  on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 28  September 1995. The Rapporteur was Mrs Santiago. At its 330th Plenary Session (meeting of 22  November 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion by a unanimous vote. 1. Introduction1.1. Fishery resources1.1.1. Years of work on this subject culminated in  the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which was adopted in 1982; this firmly based  fisheries law on the obligation to conserve natural resources and manage them rationally. Moreover, it urged those Member States interested in exploiting resources located outside their  zones of national jurisdiction to cooperate to adopt suitable measures for protecting and  conserving those resources. 1.1.2. This requirement became essential when fishing zones or EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones) were  extended to 200 miles from the coastline, placing more than 35 % of the world's ocean surface area  and around 95 % of the planet's marine resources under the jurisdiction of states with coastal  waters. 1.1.3. Without doubt, fishing constitutes one of the oldest of human activities; it has  historically had a socio-economic and cultural impact on coastal populations and has generated  centuries of contact and exchange which have been of key importance in helping populations to get  to know one another and in bringing them closer together. 1.1.4. The world-wide demographic explosion and the resultant requirement for foodstuffs, together  with technical progress in processing and conserving fish and the globalization of trade have in  the meantime all contributed to a sharp increase in the pressure on the fish population. 1.1.4.1. The fishing effort has thus increased spectacularly, combining traditional fishing methods  with new fleets of new and bigger vessels with added power using the latest technology for  detecting and catching fish. 1.1.4.2. The alert was raised early on about situations where there were clear cases of  over-capacity and over-fishing; for a fair number of species which are highly valued as foodstuffs,  these circumstances are jeopardizing the preservation of enough fish stocks for fishing to  continue, namely by drastically reducing the reproductive fish populations needed to renew the  stock. 1.1.5. Although awareness of over-fishing has already filtered out from the ranks of the scientific  community into the political arena and to the general public, and is now even recognized by those  who are directly concerned - the fishermen - world catches have continued to increase: - 1983: 77,5 million tonnes; - 1991: 97,4 million tonnes; - 1992: 98,8 million tonnes; - 1993: 101,4 million tonnes (). 1.1.6. As the fish population decreases, the catch over-capacity continues to increase or is not at  least falling significantly. 1.1.6.1. The imbalance is so great that it has now been estimated that the world fleet contains  double the necessary capacity for rational, sustainable fishing of the planet's fishery resources. 1.1.7. It is therefore not difficult to conclude that the measures taken throughout the world to  conserve the fish population, including EU and current international fishery conventions, are  inadequate and the results obtained have not been satisfactory, suggesting either that the  objectives are too modest, that the measures are inadequate or that they have not been properly  applied, or - even more probably - a mixture of all three. 1.1.8. It does not seem out of place to reiterate that fisheries law itself includes the obligation  to conserve resources and manage them rationally. 1.1.8.1. In addition to these elements, there are a whole series of external environmental factors  about which not much is known or which have not been studied in depth. This includes pollution,  whose scale, extent and impact on the increased scarcity of resources is becoming more and more  obvious, proving that the seas' capacity for regeneration does have limits and that our highly  technological civilization cannot continue to use this part of its heritage with impunity, nor use  this source of life as a dumping ground for all kinds of waste. 1.1.9. It does not therefore seem inappropriate to declare finally that the conservation and  rational management of fishery resources will have to be dealt with jointly with the conservation  of these resources' environment. 1.2. The European Union1.2.1. Through the extension and localization of the EEZs of the EU Member  States, which have a presence in all the oceans of the world, the EU is one of, if not the biggest  maritime powers. 1.2.2. It certainly constitutes the biggest world market for fish products. 1.2.2.1. It is the foremost fishing power in the Atlantic, placing it in a high position globally  in terms of catch, although significantly below Japan, China, the whole of the ex-USSR and on the  same level as Chile and Peru. 1.2.3. It has also registered a deficit. 1.2.3.1. According to the Commission, the total volume of annual catch - around 7 million tonnes  including approximately 2 million tonnes captured in non-Community waters - is virtually identical  to the volume of fisheries imports needed to satisfy consumer demand. 1.2.3.2. Imports of fisheries products amount to 17 % of total food products imported into the  Community, and contribute to more than half of the balance of trade deficit for these products. 1.2.3.3. The Community's balance of trade deficit in fisheries products amounted to around MECU 6  000 in 1992 (approximately 10 times the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) budget for that year). 1.2.4. The Community fishery products market is therefore marked by a strong dependence on imports  from third countries with all the concomitant problems, especially price fluctuations. 1.2.4.1. In the EU these problems are dealt with by the common organization of the market, which is  part of the CFP. Its aim is to regulate conditions for competition on the internal market and also  to prevent unfair competition from third countries, in keeping with the EU's international  agreements. 1.2.5. All the above demonstrates the importance of the Common Fisheries Policy which was finally  adopted in 1983 with the rules common to all Member States, covering all aspects of fishery  products, from the sea to the consumer. 1.2.6. The CFP has been up-dated and improved; it has undergone changes both due to the successive  enlargements of the EU and in response to international situations; but it has always maintained as  its basic objective the conservation and rational management of available resources, both internal  and external, in keeping with its long-term interests and its international commitments. 1.2.7. This confirms that the EU should play an important - if not front-line - role in marine  issues, particularly those relating to management of fishery resources, and it should equip itself  with the structures and means necessary to do this. N.B.: Aquaculture In the past few decades there have been notable developments in aquaculture  techniques and increased production from this source; this nowadays makes a significant  contribution, both in volume and value, to total foodstuff resources in the EU. Moreover, aquaculture is an integral part of the CFP. Traditional and potential fisheries production from rivers and lakes in the Community area is  another area which should not be disregarded. We nevertheless believe that these aspects lie beyond the scope of this Opinion which focuses on  key resources; however, their importance and obvious potential do warrant separate in-depth  discussion and study. 2. Conservation of resources in the European Union2.1. The dire straits in which Community  fisheries find themselves is well known. The impoverishment of resources is generally recognized,  and considered to be caused by the combined effects of over-capacity and over-fishing. 2.2. Community production is hovering around 7 million tonnes and it is possible that these volumes  will fall further unless new fishing grounds are discovered or eating habits change, leading to the  consumption of species not at present used for this purpose. 2.3. The obligation to maintain catches at levels allowing minimum viability for renewal and  maintenance of fish stocks has, in the EU, been dealt with under the CFP, by controlling outputs  (through TACs (total allowable catches), quotas, boxes, closed seasons), alongside action on input  (reducing the number of vessels, technical measures for increasing selectivity or reducing catch). 2.4. The Committee has always deemed these measures as a whole to be necessary and worthwhile  although if anything sometimes too hesitant or tardy in their application (). 2.4.1. This is illustrated by the hesitant, tardy application of measures restricting the use of  highly damaging fishing gear - large drift nets - whose use is still permitted and which ought  already to have been totally abolished, at least in Community waters (). 2.4.2. Another example of this faint-hearted approach is demonstrated by the lack of any in-depth  Community studies on the effects on young fish populations of fishing for reduction purposes (fish  meal) (). 2.5. For resource management, the use of the system for setting the TAC - analytical or  precautionary assessments - and division into quotas has raised a number of objections, especially  regarding how these quotas can be best used (). 2.5.1. The Committee has previously recommended a more rational approach to applying this system  and is pleased to note that the Commission has now put forward a proposal (COM(94) 583 final)  designed to make the management of annual quotas more flexible. While the Committee is prepared to  give broad support to the proposal - as it feels that it should bring immediate benefits by  reducing the friction caused by the current system and thus should have a positive long-term impact  - it is concerned that it was not asked to give an opinion on the details of the proposal. The  Committee is also concerned that a decision on the proposal has been delayed by Council. 2.6. The Commission has also recently presented a proposal which defines arrangements for managing  the fishing effort following Regulation (EC) 685/95. 2.6.1. This proposal was approved by the Council on 24  August 1995. 2.7. As part of structural measures, the constant main objective is to reduce the number of  vessels. 2.7.1. The Committee still believes that at the same time it is equally important to modernize the  fishing fleet, meaning that: vessels should be safer, more economically efficient with better  hygiene conditions and capable of more selective fishing. 2.8. These measures should be accompanied, if not preceded, by the socio-economic measures  necessary for any supernumerary fishermen to be able to retire from their hard work with dignity. 2.8.1. The implementation of these measures has led to a steady loss of jobs among fishermen and in  certain downstream industries and will continue to do so. 2.8.2. The lack of social and economic measures for the work force, which has suffered job cuts of  over 50 000, has led fishermen to reject the CFP as clearly unbalanced in terms of the attention it  pays to workers' interests. 2.8.3. The incorporation of an amendment to Article  14(14a) in the Financial Instrument for  Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) is a modest step towards minimizing the effects of restructuring in the  fisheries sector and its fleet. A package of social and economic measures must be drawn up to  assist fishermen who lose their jobs, taking into account the problems of finding alternative  employment in fisheries-dependent regions. 2.8.4. Vocational retraining is one such social measure. The feeling of frustration and redundancy  currently felt throughout fishing communities in the EU stems from the lack of a social policy for  fishermen. 2.8.4.1. The Committee has, moreover, always stated the need for constant assessment and  implementation of all socio-economic measures which might minimize the impact of restructuring  fisheries and the fishing fleet on the populations affected. It also reaffirms that such measures  must be transparent and fair, adequately publicized and explained in the communities affected by  them (). 2.8.4.2. Moreover, the absence of adequate information and explanations for these measures, both at  EU and individual Member State level, is possibly the main reason for the feeling of frustration  and 'redundancy' prevailing in Community fishing centres. 2.9. It is also true that although over-fishing is the main cause of the shrinkage in fishery  resources, it is not the only cause and Community fishermen should not always be looked upon as the  only ones responsible. 2.10. Other factors affecting the marine environment and their influence on the behaviour of the  fish population have not, as yet, been studied extensively and little is known about them. These  include: - the interrelation between a) fishing for reduction purposes (fish meal), b) the food chain of  other marine species and c) catches for human consumption; - the implications of returning fish to the sea for the behaviour of stocks; - the impact of other marine predators (mammals, birds); - pollution of the oceans in general and coastal waters in particular; - the interrelation between marine fauna and flora and the implications of the industrial farming  of marine flora; - the possibility of diseases spreading from coastal fish farms. 2.11. The link between marine environment issues and the health of fish populations is becoming  clearer day by day. 2.11.1. It therefore seems appropriate to promote ever closer links between environmental policy  and fisheries policy in the broadest sense of the term. 2.11.2. The sea has to be seen as a whole and fisheries treated with the dignity and importance  they merit. 3. Research3.1. Managing the fish population requires information on the state of stocks,  including rapid feedback about the effects of measures taken to maintain or increase stocks. 3.1.1. This information and the corrective measures themselves will necessarily have to be based on  scientific data, in other words, on research findings. 3.2. The EU does have a tradition of research in the fisheries sector. The decline in fish stocks  has meant that research has improved. 3.3. Such progress has, however, been 'imposed' by circumstances, rather than being rooted in a  clear desire to obtain strategic information which would allow genuine long-term management of  resources to be established, by adopting policies and measures which would prevent, or at least  minimize, stock depletion before it occurs. 3.4. It is up to the Community Institutions as a whole, together with the institutions of the  Member States, to carry out the urgent task of boosting and promoting research into fisheries,  encouraging the dissemination of existing techniques and scientific data, the constant compilation  of new data, and the implementation of research programmes dealing with both fish populations and  fishing techniques. 3.5. The objective would be to make such research more reliable and credible. This would allow  appropriate decisions to be taken both internally in respect of methods and timetables, and  externally, where such credibility is a precondition for the EU to play its part fully. 3.6. The Member States already have considerable scientific capital at their disposal which they  must continue to expand in keeping with their research and fisheries traditions. 3.7. It would be up to the Community (more precisely, the Commission) to carry out the important  task of coordinating the different areas of research, avoiding duplication of effort, promoting  better links between existing research institutes and setting up a Community data bank, which would  help make the system more effective overall. 3.8. The Commission should also be a driving force behind initiating and maintaining research to: - provide more accurate information on the state of fish species of most interest to the EU,  including their movements; - provide more accurate information on the links between the different fish species in the food  chain; - provide in this connection more accurate information on the implications of a) fishing for  reduction purposes (fish meal) and b) the return of fish to the sea; - ascertain the actual performance of the fishing gear used, studying how improvements could be  made, and developing methods which are more selective and/or better adapted to specific species and  areas; - ascertain the precise impact of returning fish to the sea. 3.9. Member States with fishing fleets need to play their part so that these tasks can be carried  out swiftly and successfully. 3.10. The instruments and means enabling the Community Institutions (specifically the Commission)  to function as a driving force could also be improved. 3.11. A large part of the data required to ascertain the composition, condition and movement of  stocks - as well as studies and tests on fishing gear - could be gathered cost-effectively by using  vessels and crew laid up in port, with simplified implementation programmes and minimum scientific  assistance. 3.12. This approach would also have the advantage of involving fishermen and allowing their  experience to be turned to good account. It would draw them closer to the scientific community and  certainly give them a better understanding of why certain decisions are taken. 3.13. Improved contacts and links between Community research institutes must also be backed up by  better contacts and links with their international counterparts. 3.13.1. The effect of this would almost certainly be an increase in the amount and quality of  information available, a better understanding of shared problems, and a keener concentration of the  efforts of all concerned on shared problems. 3.13.2. We consider that the driving and coordinating force of the Commission is also very  important here. 3.14. Reference has already been made to the paucity of information available on the interaction  between the marine environment, fish stocks and fisheries. We take the view that there should be  closer links between fisheries and environment policies. 3.14.1. To this end, closer ties between researchers in the fisheries sector and experts in marine  ecology must be encouraged; they are at present so tenuous as to be practically non-existent. 3.15. The Committee has in its Opinions consistently underlined the lack of suitable, dynamic  research; it reiterates here the need for such research. 4. Monitoring and back-up measures4.1. Although the decisions and measures needed for stocks to  be managed properly will have to be rooted in credible scientific data, only by effectively  monitoring their application can the results of these decisions be assessed, thereby allowing any  necessary or useful corrective measures to be taken. 4.2. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is the responsibility of the Member States -  flanked by the Commission - to monitor application of Community CFP output-related (TACs, quotas,  boxes, etc.) and input-related (permits, rules on fishing gear, minimum net sizes, and so on)  measures for conserving resources. 4.2.1. In the light of the most recent experience, the Committee feels it would be helpful for more  monitoring tasks to be carried out by Community supervisors/inspectors, thus minimizing the scope  for conflict and the risk of the parties concerned feeling they have been treated unfairly. 4.3. Although more transparency and fairness in the adoption of conservation measures is being  imposed at Community level - particularly since, given the current fishing over-capacity, these  measures often appear restrictive from the fishermen's point of view - it is the transparency,  fairness and also consistency of the Member States' application and monitoring of these measures  that will determine the success of the CFP. 4.4. Compliance with TACs and quotas is monitored above all through catches landed at port. There  are still significant differences in the ways in which different Member States calculate catches.  This is even the case between different ports within each Member State. Therefore, in spite of  progress achieved, it is still generally felt that the TACs and quotas are not being adhered to. 4.5. There is also still the feeling that monitoring measures are not being properly applied at  input level. 4.5.1. Here, too, the availability of monitoring activities and the sensitivity to such monitoring  varies between Member States, and this leads to less effective monitoring overall. It can even give  rise to friction and conflicts between different fishing communities. 4.6. As a matter of priority, as the Committee has stated, Member States and the Commission should  therefore focus their attention on ensuring that monitoring measures currently in force and those  which may subsequently be adopted are properly applied (). 4.6.1. It is felt that both the different methods for calculating catches and the criteria for  monitoring inputs urgently require standardization. 4.7. The Committee recommends that all current and future monitoring mechanisms are chosen on the  basis of the straightforwardness and clarity of their application. This is the only way they can be  implemented effectively and successfully. 4.7.1. In this connection, the Committee also recommends that both the inspectors and the fishermen  themselves are given full information and explanations. 4.8. Pilot projects are being carried out to ascertain whether satellites could be used to track  the movements of fishing vessels. The Committee hopes that these pilot projects will be successful and that they will soon lead to  the adoption of this monitoring system, since it would, moreover, represent a major contribution to  protecting crews' lives. 4.9. At the same time as improving the application of its rules on monitoring stocks internally,  the EU must also strive to ensure that the rules it has adopted on fishing methods with which its  own fishermen must comply, are also adopted internationally. It must work actively to promote these  rules under the conventions and agreements to which it is signatory and, more generally, it must  work together with the UN/FAO to speed up moves to draft and adopt an international code of good  conduct for fisheries. 4.10. Over-capacity makes the temptation to overfish extremely difficult to resist. 4.10.1. Member States with fishing fleets must, at the earliest opportunity, embark on an in-depth  study and begin an open debate on the size and composition of fishing fleets, adjusting these to  the volume of available and foreseeable stocks in line with their fishing traditions and  abilities. 4.10.2. Any such study and debate should be backed up at Community level in such a way as to  harmonize and optimize all the results. 4.10.3. The Committee also considers that the effectiveness of any measures taken will, to a  considerable extent, depend on engaging the joint responsibility of the various economic agents and  social partners involved. They should consequently participate at all stages in the process from  studies and decisions to back-up measures. 4.11. It is only in this way that we believe that fishing can be sustained. 4.11.1. Fisheries must not grind to a halt by the next millennium. 5. The external dimension to European Union policy5.1. In the previous sections we looked at  fisheries in Community waters, in particular monitoring and research which are key factors for  continued rational fishing of EU fish stocks. They contain a number of suggestions, some new, some  which had already been made on previous occasions which the Committee deems to be most important  for securing a social balance in the sector and for maintaining its efficiency. 5.1.1. It is fair to say that although there are many pressing issues still to be dealt with, much  has been achieved and the internal dimension to the Common Fisheries Policy is developing in the  right direction. 5.2. The same cannot be said about the external dimension to the Common Fisheries Policy.  Increasing impoverishment of Community fish stocks, the need to manage fishing at sustainable  levels together with the need to limit the destruction of the fishing fleet should lead to the  European Union playing a more active role on the international scene, inter alia by concluding  fishing agreements to promote this key element, namely the external dimension to the Common  Fisheries Policy; this is far from being the case at present. 5.3. It could even be said that all the current bilateral fishing agreements between the EU and  third countries together constitute no more than the sum of the traditional agreements which  individual EU fishing states had already separately concluded with these same third countries at  the time they joined the EU; in some cases the conditions attached to these agreements are now less  favourable for the EU. 5.4. Likewise, in international fishery bodies where the EU now speaks with one voice on behalf of  all the individual states previously signatories to these agreements, the Community's position does  not seem to have improved in line with its international importance. Rather, there has been a  deterioration in the response to EU fishing states' legitimate rights, which has been detrimental  to their interests and damaging to the EU as a whole. 5.5. The EU only has two common policies: the CAP and the CFP. Both are common and comprehensive  policies; however, there the similarity ends. They are essentially different in their origin and  spirit. While the EU registers a surplus in almost all its agricultural products, there is a  growing deficit in fisheries products, and the EU's own waters - where rational management is  pushed to the limit - only allow a catch of a little more than a third of its consumer  requirements. 5.6. The EU nevertheless does have the vessels, equipment, men and also the fishing tradition which  would allow it to increase its catches in third countries' or international waters by better use of  its technical and in particular human resources. 5.6.1. This would involve a) concluding more or better agreements (which is becoming increasingly  difficult) and b) seeking out international waters which contain species of interest to the EU and  which are as yet little exploited. 5.7. To do this, the EU must act in keeping with its position as: - one of the world's principal consumers of fishery products; - one of the leading fisheries powers; and also- a leading authority in all matters relating to  the conservation of marine resources, especially fish stocks. 5.8. To this end, the EU must become a driving force and active member of all the international  organizations to which it belongs, currently in many cases only as an observer, and assume the role  and obtain the prevalent position befitting it. 5.9. In the meantime the United Nations Conference on straddling stocks and highly migratory  species has finished; in the final Agreement, the EU was in a minority position. If the Agreement  should enter into force, the balance sought by the Conference can only be achieved by: - open, non-discriminatory and transparent regional organizations; - full respect for the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state; - clear, unambiguous balance, respecting the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea,  between the rights and obligations of coastal states and those of the fleets operating in distant  waters, particularly as regards compatibility of measures. 5.10. The Committee does not have detailed information about fishing agreements currently in force  or those which may be in the process of renegotiation. 5.11. Consequently, the only recommendation which it feels it can and ought to make is that the EU  should attach due economic and political priority and importance to fishing agreements when  negotiating them and that the external dimension to the Common Fisheries Policy should no longer be  the 'poor relation' in EU international negotiations. 5.12. In defending its interests, the EU cannot turn its back on problems relating to the  conservation of marine resources and fish stocks in particular; so that the EU can play its part in  an informed, credible manner, the ESC feels that research should be developed and boosted  accordingly, as called for in Chapter II above. 5.13. The 21st century will be the century of water and of the oceans and if the EU wants to carry  some weight in the debates, challenges and international competition which will emerge in marine  matters, it cannot neglect research into fisheries in particular or oceanography in general. 5.14. Moreover, the EU's interests as a maritime power all point to the need for a global,  integrated policy of the seas, consolidating the various disparate components. Done at Brussels, 22  November 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() Source:  FAO. Figures are not available post-1993.  () OJ No C 223, 31. 8. 1992, OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, OJ No C 73, 15. 3. 1993, OJ No C 397, 31. 12.  1994.  () OJ No C 393, 31. 12. 1994.  () OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, OJ No C 304, 10. 11. 1993, OJ No C 52, 13. 2. 1994, OJ No C 393, 31.  12. 1994.  () OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, OJ No C 223, 31. 8. 1992, OJ No C 19, 25. 1. 1993, OJ No C 73, 15. 3.  1993, OJ No C 304, 10. 11. 1993.  () OJ No C 339, 31. 12. 1991, OJ No C 332, 16. 12. 1992.