COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION relating to management guidelines for the 4th generation of multi-annual guidance programmes or MGP' S
Date: 1996-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, common fisheries policy, exploitation of resources, fishery resources, fishing fleet

*$fa&iê 

COMMISSION  OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  30.05.1996 
COM(96) 203  final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

relating to management guidelines for the 4th generation of multi-annual  guidance  programmes or 
MGFs. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

CONTENTS 

Aspirations  of the new  MAGP IV 

The adoption  of the  MAGP IV 

2.1 
2.2 

Wide consultations  as a  preliminary  to  debate  in the  Council 
The principles  of the  MAGP  III  retained 

The classic  debate: capacity  reduction  or  mixed  measures? 

Treatment  of  passive  gear, and  rules  on  fishing  gear 

Content  of MAGP IV 
5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 
5.6 
5.7 
5.8 

Report  by  the  group of  independent  experts, and  technical  progress 
The  socioeconomic  impact  of  reductions 
Fleet  segmentation 
The  special  case of  small-scale  fisheries 
The  permanent  nature  of  structural  measures 
Period  of application  of the  MAGP IV 
Additional  criterion  for  programme  monitoring 
Penalty  system  for non-compliance  with  the objectives 

Adoption  procedures 
6.1 
6.2 

Heightening  the awareness  of  Hie decision-makers  and  the  press 
Preparatory  work 
6.2.1  Reports  from  the  Member  States 
6.2.2 
6.2.3 

The  scientific  report  by the group of independent  experts 
Socio-economic  report following  regional  consultations 

6.3 

The two-tier  decision-making  system 
6.3.1  Council  decision  in June  1996 
6.3.2 

13 Commission  decisions  in November  1996 

7. 

Conclusion 

Annex  I  Showing the relationship between  fleet,  resources and  structural  measures 

Annex  II  Implementation  of MGP IV - the  simple  picture 
Annex  III The social  and economic  impact  of  measures to reduce  fleet  over-capacities 
Annex  IV The  independent  experts' report's  principal  recommendations 
Annex  V  Synthesis of regional  consultations 
Annex  VI  Illustration of the  decision  making process  relative  to  the adoption  of MGP IV. 

4 

1. Aspirations  of  the  new  MAGP  IV 

The  Commission's  1991 report1 on  the  common  fisheries  policy  stressed  the  need  for  a strong  link  between 
resource  management  and  fishing  effort  management,  i.e.  between  the  management  of  outputs  through 
TACs  and  quotas,  and  the  management  of  inputs,  especially  fleet  capacity,  which  is  the  basic  factor  in 
fishing  effort,  (see  Annex  I). 

This link  was forged  when  the Council  debated  the MAGP  III  in December  1993; in view  of major  surplus 
capacity  in  the  segments  of  the  Community  fleet  targeting  certain  categories  of  resources,  objectives  for 
the  reduction  of  fishing  effort  were  adopted  for  1992-95:  20%  for  demersal  species,  15%  for  benthic 
species  and  0%  for  pelagic  species,  considerably  less  ambitious  than  the  Commission's  initial  proposal2. 

These  targets  were  laid  down  in a series of Commission  Decisions on  the  fleets  of  the Member  States3 The 
arrangements  were  extended  to  Sweden  and  Finland  on  their  accession.4 

We  are  now  approaching  the  end  of  the  period  of  application  of  the  MAGP  III, and  it  is clear  that,  while 
there  has  been  some  decline  in  the  surplus  capacity  of  the  Community  fishing  fleet,  the  objectives  have 
not  been  achieved,  in  particular  by  certain  Member  States that  had  much  lost  time  to  make  up.  Moreover, 
the  technical  progress  achieved  in  the  industry  over  the  period  certainly  hampered  compliance  with  the 
guidelines. 

A  further  exacerbating  factor  has  been  the  repetition  of  catastrophic  declines  in  prices  in  recent  years, 
which has led some  fleets to increase  fishing  to offset  the drop in income; this has contributed  to  increasing 
fishing  effort,  further  aggravating  over-exploitation  of  resources. 

These  factors  combine  to explain  why, during  the period  observed,  available  estimates  of the  development 
of resources do not,  in general, reflect  significant  progress.  Indeed,  in many  cases, there  has been  a  decline 
in  stocks, matched  by  a  deterioration  in  the  economic  situation  in  the  sector.  In  the  circumstances,  there 
is no  alternative  to  reprogramming  objectives  with  a  view  to  a  further  reduction  in  surplus  fleet  capacity, 
so  as  to: 

improve  stocks; 
boost  competitiveness  and  profitability. 

their  impact 

Given 
on  regional  social  and  economic  life,  fleet  restructuring  measures  must  be 
implemented  taking into account the viewpoints of regional  community  policy  and developing  these  coastal 
zones  dépendant  on  fishing. 

1991  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  Common 

Fisheries  Policy  (SEC  (91)2288  final). 

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  ( O JL  10,  14.01.94). 
Commission  Decisions 92/588/EEC to 92/598/EEC of 21 December  1992 on multiannual  guidance 
programmes  for  fishing  fleets  for  the  period  1993  to  1996  (OJ  L  401,  31.12.1992),  and 
Commission  Decisions  95/238/EC to  95/248/EC of  7 June  1995 amending  Decisions  92/588/EEC 
to  92/598/EEC  ( O JL  166,  15.7.1995). 
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;  Commission  Decisions  96/73/EC  and  96/74/EC  of  22  December  1995  on 
multiannual  guidance programmes for the fishing  fleets  of Finland and  Sweden  for the period  1995 
to  1996  pursuant  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3699/93. 

2. 

The  adoption  of  MAGP IV 

2.1 

Wide consultations  as a  preliminary  to debate  in  the  Council 

The MAGP IV, like the MAGP III, will be debated at  length by the Council. The debate, however, needs 
to  be  carefully  prepared  by means  of  a  series of  regional  consultations  with  trade  organizations  and  all 
those involved in the fishing industry. The Commission is anxious to ensure that all possible has been done 
to  inform  the Council  of the  full  implications  of  a programme  to adjust  fleet  capacity,  whose  objectives 
may  be difficult  to attain. 

To this end, 34 regional consultations were organized  between November  1995 and March  1996 with the 
backing of the national authorities in the Community regions most strongly dependent on fisheries. As well 
as  regional  meetings,  there  have  been,  and  will  be,  several  consultations  with  European  fisheries 
organizations,  including  consultations  with  the  Advisory  Committee  on Fisheries  on  24  January  and  21 
May  1996.  The  Commission  will  try  to  profit  from  the  views  exchanged  in  these  consultations  on  the 
development of the activities of the Community fishing  fleet, and the ideas of the trade on the content and 
application  of the MAGP  IV and  accompanying  financial  measures. 

2.2 

The  principles  of the  MAGP  HI  retained 

The  guiding  principles  behind  the  MAGP  III,  including  openness  and  transparency,  fair  treatment  for 
Member  States, and flexibility,  will  be retained;  this will  guarantee  that each Member  State will  be able 
to find a suitable response, within the operational framework  of the MAGP  IV, to its specific needs in view 
of the type of fleet and fishing  activities, but without the MAGP  IV being used, at any time, as an excuse 
for  special  treatment  or a means of by-passing the  principle  of the relative  stability  of  fishing  activities. 

To ensure  openness  and transparency,  the  methodology  adopted  will  be  universally  comprehensible  and 
susceptible  to  verification. 

Fairness  involves asking the Member  States to apply  the same rates of reduction  to the same segments of 
the  industry  without discrimination  between  fleets, types of  vessels or types of  gear (passive  or towed). 

Flexibility  means allowing the Member  States to group certain segments of the fleet  together, if they  see 
fit. On the principle  adopted  for  the  MAGP  III, the rate  of reduction  applicable  to the  group as a whole 
will  be that  applicable  to the  most  sensitive  species  in the  group. 

The  adjustment  of  the  fishing  effort  through  the  application  of  structural  measures  will  not  affect  the 
relative stability of Member States' take-up offish  as expressed in the mode of allocation of fishing quotas. 
Indeed,  by  aiming  at  profitability  for  fishing  operations  through  the  elimination  of  over-capacity,  the 
MAGP  IV will reduce the risk of fraud while enabling quotas to be fully taken up under normal conditions. 

3. 

The classic  debate: capacity  reduction  or  mixed  measures? 

It will be remembered that the MAGP I and II, which were in force in 1983-91, set fairly modest  objectives 
for  limitation  of  fishing  fleet  capacity  as a  whole, for  each  national  fleet.  Over  the period  1992-96, the 
MAGP  III took  a new and  different  approach, setting ceilings  on fishing  efforts  by  segment of the  fleet, 
these  ceilings were considerably  lower than  the  earlier  objectives. 

The new practice of expressing objectives in terms of fishing effort  in the MAGP began in the transitional 
MAGP of  1992, where 25% of the requisite capacity reductions could be achieved through cutting  fishing 
activity. This innovation soon led the Commission  to define  proper conditions for  implementation, which 
necessarily  involved recourse to the concept of fishing  effort.  Consequently,  in the MAGP  III, objectives 
could be expressed in terms of fishing effort, and achieved through measures combining capacity reduction 
and reduction of activity  (mixed approach). However, to retain  the structural  character  of  the MAGP III, 
at  least  55% of  the objectives  were  to be  achieved  by  capacity  reduction  (capacity  reduction  approach). 

Although  most  Member  States nowadays  support  capacity  reduction  alone  as the best means of  eliminating 
over-capacity, some are particularly  anxious to retain  a mixed  approach.  It must  be admitted,  however,  that 
not  even  those  Member  States  who  take  that  view  have  so  far  exploited  the  option  provided  in  the 
MAGP  III  of  implementing  the  measures  for  the  reduction  of  fishing  activities  that  could  be  taken  into 
account  for  the  programme. 

In  the  circumstances,  there  are  grounds  for  doubting  whether  this  method  of  fixing  objectives  in  terms  of 
fishing  effort,  as was done  in the MAGP  III, can  be of  further  practical  use. The  question  is pressing,  since 
later Community  rules developed  new arrangements  for the management  of fishing  effort  in specific  fishing 
grounds,  in  parallel  to  the  arrangements  for  the  management  of  fishing  effort  by  segment  of  the  fleet  in 
the  MAGP. 

The  MAGP  IV  should  attempt  to  set  objectives  for  the  adjustment  of capacity  so  that  for  a  segment  of  the 
fleet  carrying  out  its  activity  normally  in  a  given  fishing  ground,  the  ceilings  on  fishing  effort  are  not 
exceeded. The Commission's idea would be to ensure a link between  structural  measures  for  the  elimination 
of  over-capacity  in  the  MAGP  IV  and  the  measures  for  the  management  of  fishing  effort  in  the  new 
Community  rules.  The  link  would  be  forged  in  two  stages  (see  annex  II). 

First  stage  (capacity  reduction  approach):  The  MAGP  IV  would  set  objectives  for  the  reduction  of 
capacity  for  each  segment  of  the  fleet  by  31  December  1996;  these  objectives  would  correspond  to  the 
objectives  for  fishing  mortality  for  each  type  of  resource  decided  by  the  Council  on  a  proposal  from  the 
Commission.  For  multipurpose  fleets,  the  rate  of  reduction  would  be  that  decided  for  the  most  sensitive 
species  concerned. 

Second  stage  (mixed  approach):  In  the  course  of  implementation  of  the programmes,  the  Member  States 
who wished to control  fishing activity  coutd submit  fishing effort  management  programmes for each  fishing 
ground  to  the  Commission.  At  this stage, the  link  between  fleet  segments  as defined  in  the  MAGP  IV  and 
the  fishing  grounds  subject  to  controls  would  have  to  be  accurately  established,  if  possible.  At  this  second 
stage,  the  arrangements  for  managing  fishing  efforts  by  fleet  segment,  as  laid  down  in  the  MAGP  III, 
would  finally  disappear.  Only  those  Member  states  with  historical  data  on  the  activities  of  their  fleet,  and 
in  a  position  to  undertake  to  monitor  fishing  activity  effectively,  could  accede  to  this  second  stage. 

For  fleets  that  target  a  single  species  or  fishing  ground,  this  framework  will  be  fairly  simple;  for 
multipurpose  fleets,  targeting  a  variety  of  resources  with  differing  objectives  for  fishing  effort  reduction 
in  different  grounds,  it  is  more  complicated.  For  such  fleets,  the  Commission  might  propose  a  rate  of 
capacity  reduction  intermediate  between  the  rates  required  for  the  most  sensitive  and  the  least  sensitive 
resources,  as  long  as  the  Member  States  are  capable  of  organizing  an  appropriate  allocation  of  efforts 
directed  at  the  different  resources.  With  this  arrangement,  ceilings  on  efforts  could  be  respected  through 
the elimination  of over-capacity.  Such an approach  implies, as an essential  condition, that  the Member  State 
should  guarantee  the  reduction  in  fishing  effort  for  the  most  threatened  species. 

The  Commission  is of  the  opinion  that  this  approach  would  certainly  be  preferable  to  the  existing  one  as: 

it  respects  the  spirit  of  the  structural  measures,  while  ensuring  the  elimination  of  over-capacity; 
it  ensures  a proper  link  between  structural  measures  and  conservation  measures  (management  of 
fishing  efforts); 
it eliminates  unnecessary  duplication  between  two  schemes  for  the  management  of  fishing  effort, 
in  the  MAGP  III  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  the  framework  of  Community  rules  on  fishing  efforts 
for  specific  fishing  grounds  on  the  other; 
it  does  not  impose  systematic  capacity  reductions  in  the  fishing  grounds  where  reduction  in 
activity  will  suffice  to  ensure  respect  for  the  ceilings  on  effort. 

4. 

Treatment  of  passive  gear,  and  rules  on  fishing  gear 

When  the  fleet  was  classified  into  segments  for  the  purposes  of  drawing  up  the  MAGP  III,  it  was 
recognized  that  the  usual  measurement  parameters  for  the  MAGP  objectives  (Kw  and  GRT)  could  not 
properly  measure  the  fishing  effort  due  to  passive  gear.  It  is  clear  that  tonnage  and  engine  power  do  not 

reveal  the  fishing  effort  of  a  trap  setter.as  it  will  depend  mainly  on  the  surface  of  the  nets  set,  or  the 
number  of  hooks  or  baskets  used,  and  the  length  of  time  they  stay  in  the  water. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  MAGP  III,  some  progress  has  been  made  towards  improving  the  selectiveness 
of  fixed  nets  through  technical  measures  governing  mesh  sizes.  However,  nothing  has  been  done  about 
limiting  the  efficiency  of  gear.  It  has  now  transpired  that  the  fishing  effort  of  these  segments  of  the  fleet 
has  not  been  restricted  in  the  same  way  as  that  of  the  vessels  using  towed  gear. 

For  passive  gear,  as  for  other  fishing  gear,  technical  measures  are  intended  to  improve  selectiveness,  but 
they  cannot  take  the  place  of  restrictions  on  fishing  effort.  Restrictions  on  fishing  effort  for  passive  gear 
still  raise  a  specific  problem,  in  that  the  relevant  restrictions  are  those  affecting  the  features  of  the  gear 
rather  than  the  vessels. 

However, in very  specific  programmed  cases where  technical  measures are  intended  to lead to a  substantial 
improvement  in  the  selectiveness  of  fishing  operations  as  between  species  (i.e.  reduction  in  by-catches), 
the  Commission  intends  to  study  the  effects  of  these  programmes  on  fishing  mortality  case  by  case;  the 
results  could  then  be  taken  into  account  in  the  MAGP. 

5. 

Content  of  M A GP  IV 

5.1 

Report  by  the  group  of  independent  experts,  and  technical  progress 

On  the  basis  of  past  experience,  the  Commission  decided  to  form  a  group  of  experts,  as  was  done  for  the 
MAGP  III. This  new  group  of experts  recently  identified  the  resources  where  a reduction  in  fishing  effort 
is needed. The recommendations of the group match those of the competent  scientific  bodies, and  reproduce 
their  conclusions,  with  additional  considerations  on  the  size  of  fleets.  The  overall  situation  of  the  stocks 
targeted  by  the  Community  fleet  is  described. 

Of course, the scientists recommend  adopting  fishing  effort  reduction  measures  as soon  as possible.  Taking 
account  of  technical  progress,  which  may  be  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  of  2%  at  the  very  least  over 
the  long  term,  the  objectives  for  annual  reduction  must  rise  by  the  same  percentage  to  ensure  that  the 
decline  achieved  is  not  neutralized  by  technical  progress. 

5.2 

The  socio-economic  impact  of  reductions 

The  impact  of  fleet  reductions  on  areas  dependent  on  fishing  can  be  measured  both  socially  and 
economically  (see  Annex  III). 

At  a  social  level,  a  reduction  in  fishing  capacity  will  have  a  negative  effect  on jobs  at  sea  and  upstream 
of  fishing  (supplies, shipyards  and  harbour  administration).  On  the  other  hand,  the  downstream  sector  will 
suffer  only  during the  time required  for  the  "recapitalization"  offish  stocks, since  the  quantities  caught  will 
eventually  increase,  thus  increasing  the  number  of  downstream  jobs  (all  other  things  being  equal) 

In  economic  terms,  the  profitability  of  fishing  companies  and  the  competitiveness  of  European  products 
will  improve  considerably  as  a  result  of  the  elimination  of  the  overcapacity  of  Community  fleet. 

The  negative  effects  of  direct  and  indirect  job  losses  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  Structural  Fund 
measures  (FIFG, PESCA, Objectives  1,2  and  5(b)). Since  December  1995, direct job  losses resulting  from 
restructuring  are  covered  by  special  social  measures  for  the  sector  (part-financing  of  early  retirement 
schemes  and  retirement  grants). 

The  Commission  thinks that  staggering  the  restructuring  measures,  together  with  the  financial  measures  to 
help  the  Sector,  will  soften  their  impact.  In  other  words,  and  this  is  a  major  political  issue,  the  Council's 
decision to stagger the restructuring measures, which the group of experts thinks  should be adopted as  soon 
as  possible,  will  lessen  their  immediate  impact  on  coastal  communities. 

On the other hand, it could lead to a prolongation of the structural  crisis in the sector. Technical progress, 
which has been exacerbated  by large amounts of aid for modernization  in the sector (ECU  740m between 
1994  and  1999)  should  not  be  allowed  to  bring  to  nought  the  anticipated  effects  of  timid  restructuring 
measures  resulting  from  the  unambitious  objectives  that  have  been  laid  down. 

5.3 

Segmentation  of fleets and  fisheries 

For  the  MAGP  III,  the  number  of  segments  and  their  contents  were  defined  by  the  Member  States 
themselves  on  the  basis  of  a  general  framework  proposed  by  the  Commission.  For  MAGP  IV,  the 
Commission would like to propose a new general framework  based on three elements defining the  fisheries 
as  biological  management  units, groups  of  species and  fishing  gear. 

Recognition  of  the  special  nature  of  certain  fishing  activities  can  be  based  on  the  identification  of 
management  units.  The  Commission 
thinks  it  is  advisable  to  operate  using  relatively  large  biological 
management  units  (Mediterranean,  Baltic)  each  time  it  is possible  to  identify  areas  of  development  and 
confinement  of stocks in relation  to the fleets.  Fleet  segmentation  should  provide  the answer to the  often 
imperfect  match  between  species  development  areas  and  the  multi-purpose  and  opportunistic  nature  of 
fishing. 

thinks  it  is  essential  to  organize  the  restructuring  of  some  fleets  into  appropriate 
The  Commission 
segments  whose  objectives 'will  be  laid  down  taking  account  of  access  rules  not  exclusively  based  on 
biological considerations. This will involve identification  of restructuring measures taken for other reasons 
(access  to Moroccan  waters, ban  on  certain  fishing  gear,  etc.). 

Where possible segmentation will determine homogeneous groups of vessels to which particular  objectives 
can apply in relation to those fisheries exploited. As a rule the objectives will receive Community  financial 
support  (Structural  Funds).  In some  circumstances  it  will  be  necessary  to  ask  whether  it  is justified  for 
some fleet  segments, such as tropical  freezer  tuna  seiners, to continue  to receive  Community  investment 
aid,  given  how  they  are  fitted  out,  the  extent  of  their  fishing  activities  and  the  aid  they  receive  from 
elsewhere  (fisheries  agreements  and  compensatory  allowances). 

5.4 

The  special  case of  small-scale  fisheries 

Very  small-scale  inshore fishing from  small craft  at sea for  less than 24 hours provides most jobs at  sea, 
even though many of them are seasonal. Production from  small-scale inshore fishing  is low in volume but 
high in value. As a rule it takes place in a narrow coastal  band. The sector is going through a natural  and 
continuous  fall  in fishing capacity  and jobs. 

With MAGP  IV, the Commission would like to identify  all non-trawler small-scale vessels fishing for local 
stocks  in order to put  them  in a fleet  segment  whose  capacity  would  be  defined  in terms of  numbers of 
vessels  and  tonnage.  This  approach  would  make  it  possible  for  the  sector  to  be  modernized  for  safety 
reasons  and to improve fish processing  on board by  installing  new  engines. 

This measure would not apply to small-scale vessels fishing for shared stocks, nor to trawlers whose engine 
power  affects  the  fishing  effort,  monitoring  of  which  in  coastal  waters  would  have  to  be  stepped  up 
considerably.  The  Commission  departments  think  stricter  measures  forbidding  fishing  in certain  coastal 
waters  should  be adopted (boxes). 

5.5 

The  permanent nature  of  structural  measures 

Under the multiannual guidance programmes, the measures to reduce fishing effort  have permanent  effects 
for each component (capacity and activity). The structural nature of these programmes is based on the idea 
that once the capacity  of a segment or the activity  of a vessel  has been reduced, there  is no turning back. 
Based  on  the  law  according  to  which  the  same  causes  have  the  same  effects,  any  renewed  increase  in 
capacity, and consequently in fishing effort,  would place the sector in the same difficulties  it was in before. 

It must  also  be quite clear  to everyone  that, where  a Member  State  has been able, by means of a  fishing 
effort  management system, to undercut the objectives  laid down in its MAGP  IV in terms of capacity (See 
Section  3), the  effort  reductions  will then  be final and  it will  no  longer  be  possible  for  it to  increase  its 
fishing  activities.  For  example:  the  reductions  in  fishing  effort  allowed  for  in  the  MAGP II  for  the 
Netherlands is a measure which has permanently reduced the activity of beam trawlers in that country. Any 
subsequent increase in that activity would mean a reassessment of the capacity objectives for that segment. 

5.6 

Period  of application  of the  MAGP IV 

For  financial  planning  reasons  related  to  the  Structural  Funds,  the  Commission  thinks  that  MAGP IV 
should  cover  the  period  1997-1999.  Application  of  MAGP  IV  will  thus  coincide  with  the  financial 
measures under the Structural Funds planned for the same period  However, it unlikely that this three-year 
period will be enough to permanently  eliminate the overcapacity  of the fleet.  Therefore, a MAGP V to be 
applied  after  MAGP  IV cannot  be  excluded. 

5.7 

Additional  criterion  for  programme  monitoring 

In  order  to  match  the  licence  and  special  permit  schemes  to  particular  fleet  segments, the  Commission 
thinks it desirable to add a fourth parameter to the customary  fishing  effort  monitoring parameters (power, 
tonnage  and  days  at  sea)  by  which,  where  necessary,  the  number  of  vessels  per  segment  is  counted 
(nb).This parameter  could prove to be useful  in following  certain  fleet  segments ( fixed  gear, small  scale 
fisheries)  in which the  fishing  effort  is not  accurately  reflected  by  the  usual  parameters (GT,KW). 

This does not mean that it will be necessary to use the four parameters simultaneously  when the  objectives 
of  the MAGP are  laid  down. 

5.8 

Penalty  system  in cases of non-compliance  with  the  objectives 

Failure to comply with Community provisions makes the Member States liable to infringement  procedures 
under  Article  169 of  the  Treaty.  This  will  apply  to  failure  to  comply  with  measures  adopted  under  the 
MAGPs  III and IV. 

Without prejudice to Article  169 of the Treaty, if the Commission establishes that a Member State has not 
made  the  appropriate  decrees  to  ensure  that  fleet  re-structuring  objectives  are  respected,  it  may  submit 
proposals  to  the  Council  on  appropriate  general  measures.  The  Council  decides  by  qualified  majority 
(Article  25 of Council Regulation  (EEC) No  2487/93). 

In addition, there is Article  10 of Council  Regulation  (EC) No 3699/93, according  to which the Member 
States may not take vessel construction or fleet modernization measures producing additional fishing  effort 
if  they  have  not complied  with the  objectives  of the  programmes. 

In the  course  of the  programme, these  provisions  applying  to the  overall  intermediate  measures  and  the 
final objectives  for  each  segment  are objected  to by  those  in the  trade  whose  vessel  is or was  in a fleet 
segment  whose  objectives  have been  attained. 

The  Commission  recognizes  the  difficulties  which these  provisions  can cause  for  some  beneficiaries  of 
investment projects, and are planning a reform  of the present rules which in respect  of the investment aid 
schemes will  only  require  the  intermediate  and final  objectives  for  each  segment to  be complied  with. 

J 

6. 

Adoption  procedures 

6.1 

Heightening  the awareness  of the  decision-makers  and  public  opinion 

The Commission  took  pains to prepare  the  decision-makers, i.e. the  European  fisheries  ministers, for  the 
MAGP IV,  and  those  who  will  be  governed  by  it,  i.e. the  trade.  Therefore  it  intervened  pn  several 
occasions at meetings of the Fisheries Council  in the last  quarter of  1995 to  impress on the Ministers the 
importance  they  should  attach  to  eliminating  the Community  fleet's  overcapacity. 

On  12 March  1996 a teleconference  was organized from  Brussels with all the Commission's representation 
offices  to  make the  press  and  the  trade  aware  of the  need  to reduce  fleet  overcapacity. 

6.2 

Preparatory  work 

The Commission  will have a number of preparatory  documents, all in preparation for  its proposal for the 
Council meeting in June  1996. It is on the basis of that proposal that the Council will lay down the policy 
guidelines  for  the  MAGP IV. 

6.2.1  Reports  from  the  Member  States 

In accordance with the legal requirements of article 5 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, 
Member States should have submitted by 01.01.96 a report on implementation  of their MAGP  III 
and  on  preparation  of  the  MAGP  IV.  The  delays  in  producing  these  reports,  of  which  the 
Commission  is aware, mean that they will only be able to be used for  an overall synthesis. These 
national reports will be analysed in the proposed regulation framework  which the Commission will 
make  to the  June  Council  in order  to establish  the  direction  of  MGP IV. 

6.2.2 

The  scientific  report  by  the  group  of  independent  experts 

The  group  of  independent  experts  met,  as  planned,  four  times  between  September  1995  and 
February  1996. The  overall  report  by  the  group  of  experts  and  the  synthesis  by  their  president 
were  delivered  to the  Fisheries ministers  during the  Council  meeting  of  22nd  April  1996. 

You will find a résumé in Annex IV of the group of experts principal recommendations. The work 
of  the group clearly shows a continuing deterioration in the stocks which dictates that steps need 
to be taken  without  delay. MGP IV will  attempt to fix objectives  for  the reduction  of  capacities 
by  fleet  segment  in  relation  to  fish  mortality  objectives  within  each  fishery.  The  fisheries  will 
firstly  have been put in the context of maritime region, species or group of species and gear types. 

The  Commission  is  aware  that  for  a  certain  number  of  stocks  facing  a  critical  situation  and 
approaching the collapse  of the biomass, some sensitive  measures to reduce fishing  effort  in the 
short term will have to be proposed to the Council and adopted without concession. On the other 
hand, for a certain number of stocks for which this danger does not exist and where fish mortality 
is  simply  greater  than  optimal  exploitation  conditions  in  the  economic  plan,  the  Commission 
estimates  that  it's  proposal  and  the  Council's  decision  will  be  able  to  take  into  account  social 
factors  likely  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  time  limit  for  implementing  the  group  of  experts' 
recommendations. 

6.2.3 

Socio-economic  report  following  regional  consultations 

With the support of  national authorities, the Commission  organized  32 regional consultations in 
those European regions most dependent on fishing as well as additional meetings with European 
organisations from  the fisheries chain  in order to gather information  and ideas from the industry 
on fishing activity developments and on preparation of  MAGP  IV. The information  and opinions 
received  by  the  Commission  have  been  carefully  compiled  in  the  form  of  a  synthesised  report 
which  shows the positions  of those  involved  in the  chain  with  regard  to the MGPs. 

A résumé of this report, which will be sent to the Council as was the independent experts report, 
is  shown  in annex  V to  this  document; 

These  consultations  clearly  illustrate  that  the  fishermen  do  not  dispute  MGP  as  a 
tool  for 
regulating fishing  capacities, but would  like to  see  this tool used  in a more flexible  manner  and 
not  exclusively  of other  means  of  reducing  fishing  effort  where  the  stock  situation  permits  it. 

The Commission will take into account  the opinions of professionals in order to ensure the most 
flexible  possible  application  of the  Council  policy/guidelines to national  fleets. 

6.3 

The  two-tier  decision-making  system  (Annex  VI) 

This document  is intended to bring about  an exchange  of views between those responsible  for  European 
fisheries on the context, objectives and general content of  MAGP  IV. The Commission services think this 
discussion will be very useful  for preparing the draft  Council decision to be adopted  in June, in particular 
as  regards  the  general  approach  to  be  taken  under  the  various  MAGP's  IV.  Although  it  is  useful  for 
developing  ideas on the MAGP  IV, this document  does not  legally  bind  the  Commission. 

6.3.1  Council  decision  in June  1996 

The  Council  debate  in  June  1996  will  determine  the  real  extent  of  measures  to  reduce  the 
overcapacity  of the Community  fleet.  This debate results from  its obligation  set out in Article  11 
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92' determining the conditions for restructuring the sector. 
Any delay in adopting a Council decision laying down these measures would seriously  impair the 
Commission's  ability  to adopt  its own  decisions  by  the  end  of  1996. 

The Commission  will  seek  in it's proposal  to the Council  to  reconcile  the  recommendations  of 
the independent experts and the wishes expressed by  the professionals  in the sector in order that 
should  be  implemented  within a 
measures  to reduce  the  overcapacity  of  the  Community  fleet 
reasonable  time-limit.  The  facility  will  exist  within  this  proposal  to distinguish  those  stocks on 
the edge of collapse  from those which could temporarily  support the current rates of exploitation. 
However,  some measures  must  also be  adopted  for  the  latter. 

6.3.2 

13 Commission  decisions  in November  1996 

Following on from  the Council's decision, the Commission  will  organize bilateral meetings with 
the  13  Member  States  concerned  to  apply  the  Council's  policies  to  the  various  fleets,  in 
Commission decisions which will apply  to each individual  Member  State. All  13 draft  decisions 
will  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  Management  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  by 
November  at the  latest, and  the drafts  will  be  adopted  by  the  end of  the year. 

In contrast with the preceding phase of establishing MGP IV orientation where the uniqueness of 
the  Council  stage  must  be  safeguarded,  during  this  2nd  phase  the  Commission  will  take  into 
account  the  particularities  and  specifics  of  situations  highlighted  within  the  framework  of 
professional  consultations. 

The plan attached shows the different  phases of the Council/Commission decision making process 
leading  to the adoption  of  MGP IV. 

7. 

Conclusion 

The  present  decline  in  fish  stocks  is confirmation  of  the  inadequacy  of  previous  multi-annual  guidance 
programmes, and suggests that a new MGP IV should be adopted with a  more detailed  approach than in 
the  past.  Over-fishing  is  due  to  over-capacity  in  the  Community  fleet.  The  elimination  of  fleet  over 
capacity  is thus a powerful  means to serve the essential objectives  of the Common Fisheries Policy which 
are the continuity  of fishing, maintaining  profitable  exploitation  levels for the sector and the  preservation 
of jobs. 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) N°  3760/92  of  20 December  1992  establishing  a Community  system 
for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992). 

The  Commission  will  bring  in  whatever  steps are  necessary  to  improve  management  machinery  for  the 
forthcoming programme, which will be adopted in such a way as to ensure openness and transparency, and 
fair treatment for the Member States, their fleets, and the different  types of gear. The Commission proposal 
will ensure genuine adjustment  of fishing effort,  to take account of the effect  of technical progress. To this 
end,  a  hew  method  of  fixing  objectives  will  be  proposed,  to  enable  capacity  reduction  measures  to  be 
linked to schemes for managing  fishing  effort.  The MAGP  IV will also need to consider  further  capacity 
reductions  where  necessary  according  to  methods  capable  of  taking  into  account  the  social  aspects  of 
restructuring. 

The  Commission  believes  that  the  policy  issue  in  the  debate  of  June  1996, when  the  Council  will  have 
wide  margins  for  manoeuvre,  consists  in  the  timing  of  the  reductions  in  fishing  effort  called  for  in  the 
scientific  recommendations.  It  is appropriate  in  this respect  to  clearly  distinguish  the  following; 

those stocks in very poor condition and even on the brink of biological collapse for which radical 
measures  having  an  immediate  effect  should  be adopted  without  delay 

those stocks which are over-exploited  and badly  exploited to which measures must be applied as 
soon  as possible  in order  to  improve  their  exploitation 

those  slocks which do not pose any  problem  and  for  which it will  be appropriate  to follow  their 
evolution  in order  to adapt  fleet  capacity  and  avoid  allowing  the  situation  to  deteriorate 

The consensus to be reached should aim at striking a reasonable balance, over the period allowed, between 
the  level  of  biological  limitations  along  with  the  effects  of  technical  progress  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
socio-economic  consequences  in areas  dependent  on  fisheries  on  the  other. 

The Commission is concerned that it should make MGP IV acceptable to the fishermen  and the populations 
of those  areas dependent  on fishing. It must be clear, however, that  in adopting and  implementing  MGP 
IV the Member  States and the Commission  aim at a lasting balance  between  a fleet  whose competitivity 
will  have  to  be  assured  and  the  available  resources.This  is  not  to  suggest,  though,  that  this  means  the 
Commission is  disinterested in job losses which, initially, could be linked to  restructuring of the sector. On 
the contrary, restoring the stocks means that Community  waters must produce, in time, superior  riches to 
those  produced  today  and thus new jobs. Businesses  in the chain  will thus also be able to generate  more 
wealth. 

However, it  must be made  clear  for  all that, independently  of the  expected  benefits  of  this exercise, the 
sector  could  continue  to  suffer  an  erosion  of  it's  employment  level  linked  to  the  modernisation  of 
businesses  obliged  to  continually  adapt  to  the  market,  In  this  case,  one  cannot  dismiss  the  theory  of 
applying to coastal zones an ad hoc development policy which would in turn establish development policy 
and rural diversification.  Safeguarding  jobs must, effectively,  remain  a central  concern. 

If the guidelines set in June do not hold out the hope of a sufficient  reduction  in Community  fleet capacity 
between 1997 and  1999, further arrangements would need to be considered for later periods, when technical 
progress  is likely  to  generate  even more  surplus capacity.  In  these  conditions, it  is to be  feared  that  the 
Council will be called upon to take measures at regular intervals to control over-capacity in the Community 
fleet,  and to adopt  successive  reductions  over  an unforeseeable  period. 

The  Commission  will  base  it's  June  proposition  as  much  on  biological  recommendations  as  on  socio 
economic  considerations. 

10 

Annex I 

Expression of the relationship between 
Resources - Fleet - Structural  Measures 

Management of the "OUTPUTS" 
catches  (TACs, Quotas) 

Management of the "INPUTS" 
"Fishing elfort" arrangements 
Fishing effort  = Capacity x Activity 

41 

Annex II 
Extreme examples of the implementation of MGP IV 

The simplest  case:  Capacity  approach  for  one  segment  and  one  fishery 

Link 

A  reduction  of 20%  of the fishing  effort  in  the  cod  fishery  must  correspond  to a 
reduction  of 20% of the  capacity  of the trawler  segment 

The complex  case:  Approach  for one  segment  and  several  fisheries 

(First stage: Fixing in MGP IV of reductions in capacity corresponding to the fishing 
effort reductions on the most sensitive stock (capacity approach) 

Link 

Second stage (optional): connection between structural measures 
and arrangements for  management of fishing  effort (mixed approach) 

Revision of MGP IV objectives 

Fishing effort  arrangements 

"The reduction of 12% of capacity was calculated  taking into account the division 
between the 2 stocks of the fishing activities of the vessels in the segment 

1l 

Annex  III 

Social and economic impact of measures for  reducing  the 
overcapacity of the Community  fleet. 

The foreseeable socio-economic trends 

Social impact (employment) 

Economic impact 

/ 

"V" 

^ 
Competitiveness of 
European products 

Upstream 

At sea 

Down 
stream 

Profitability of 
fishing enterprises 

Realisation of 
objectives 

<!3 

ANNEX  IV: 

Principal  recommendations  of  the independent  experts  report 

1. General  evolution  of fish  stocks 

The  general  trend  expressed  by  the  experts  is  clear;  those  fish  stocks  fished  by 
Community vessels are over-exploited  and significant  reductions are required  in order to 
remedy  the situation. 

In  all  the  zones  analysed,  a  large  proportion  of  stocks  is  exploited  at  a  higher  fish 
mortality  level,  and  sometimes  considerably  higher,  than  the  limit  for  a  sustainable 
level.The report concludes that there is an urgent necessity to reduce fishing  effort  applied 
to these  stocks  immediately. 

As for  those  stocks  which  could,  in  principle,  sustain  the  current  levels of  exploitation, 
the report notes that large exploitation  gains would be made if measures to reduce  fishing 
effort  were similarly  applied. 

2. Quantifying  measures  to  reduce fishing  effort 

Taking  into account  certain  imprécisions in relation to the available statistics on stocks, 
the report advises an  evolving  approach  which  would  consist of  aiming  at reductions in 
effort  and periodically  analysing  the  effect; 

For  those  stocks  in  greatest  danger,  the  report  considers  that  a  mortality  reduction  by 
fishing  of  less than  20% would  be insufficient,  in  the sense that  it would only  have an 
insignificant  effect  on  restoring  the  fish  population.  For  those  same  stocks,  reductions 
greater  than  40% could  not be  calculated  precisely. 

3. Review  of stocks and  reference  fishing  mortality 

3.1CoastaI  resources.  The  lack  of  available  information  and  the  wide  variety  of 
circumstances militates in favour  of adopting technical measures and spatial and temporal 
regulation  of  fishing  activities. 

</y 

3.2  Offshore  resources 

Baltic  Sea 

Stocks 

Cod 

Herring+Sprat 

Minimum  reduction 
in F (%) required 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

>  -40 

Cod 25-32 

Salmon 

closing of the  fishery 

All wild salmon stocks (18) in 
the  Sweden  and  Finland 

Neither growth  nor sustainability 
arguments for an effort reduction 

The  advised  closure  of 
the 
fishery  is  with  the  objective  to 
save the wild salmon stocks 

Kattegat-Skagerrak  (Div.  Ilia),  North 
Sea  (Div.  IV),  The  eastern  Channel 
(Div.  Vlld)  and  West  of  Scotland 
(Div. VI) 

Fisheries 

Roundfish(Cod,  Haddock, 
W h i t i n g, 
S a i t h e) 
+ A n g l e r f i sh  +  M e g r im 
Nephrops 

Minimum  reduction 
in F (%)  required 

> - 40 

Flatfishes  (Plaice  + Sole) 

-33 

Industrial species (sand eel + 
Norway  Pout+  Sprat) 

Pelagics  (Herring+Mackerel) 

>  - 40 

Shrimp 

Deep water  species 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

Cod IV 
Haddock  IV 
Saithe IV 
Cod Via 
Haddock  Via 
Whiting Via 

Plaice IV 
Sole IV 

Herring  IV 
Mackerel 

NK 

• 

Conventionalbiologicalreference 
points do not provide a basis for 
changing the present exploitation 
level 

-5 % based on growth utilisation 

No assessment  available 

^5" 

Southern  Shelf  (Div  VII  except  Vlld 
(the  eastern  Channel), VIIIa,b) 

Fisheries 

Minimum  reduction 
in F (%)  required 

Critical  stock 

Comments 

Northern  Hake+Anglerfish+ 
Megrim+Nephrops 

-17 

Flatfishes 

Roundfish  (Gadoids) 

Small  pelagics 

Deep water  species 

>  -40 

- 26 

>-40 

Northern  Hake 

Sole Vila 
Sole Vllf.g 
Plaice VIIg 

Cod Vila 
Cod f,g,h 

Herring Vllg 

NK 

Off  Portugal  and  Spain  (Div  VIHc  + 
IXa) 

No assessment  available 

Fisheries 

Minimum reduction 
in F required (% ) 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

( S o u t h e rn 
D e m e r s a ls 
Hake+Anglerfish+  Megrim+ 
Horse  mackerel 
+Blue 
whiting) 

-21 

Southern  Hake 

Small  pelagics  (Sardines  + 
Anchovy) 

-33 

Sardine 

Sh rim p + N e p h r o p s + D e ep 
waters  species 

-

Mediterranean 

Nephrops (Males)  overexploited 

Fisheries 

Minimum  reduction 
in F required (%) 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

Small Pelagics (sardines and 
Anchovy) 

Demersals  Shallow  water 
(Red  mullet) 

> - 40 

Demersals  Deeper  water 
(Hake) 

> - 40 

Red mullet 

Hake 

Resources  in  International  Waters 

Conventionalbiologicalreference 
points do not provide a basis for 
changing the present exploitation 
level 

Red  mullet  appear 
to  be 
overexploited nearly everywhere 
on the continental slope 

Hake appear to be overexploited 
nearly  everywhere  on 
the 
continental slope 

4(, 

Fisheries 

Oceanic  Redfish 

Blue  Whiting 

Atlanto-scandic  Herring 

Minimum  reduction 
in F required  (%) 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

No  analytical  assessment 
available. The stock is at present 
considered  to  be  within  safe 
biological limits 

No  assessment.  Available  data 
suggest 
there  are  no 
immediate  concern  about  this 
stock. 

that 

Presently  very  large  resource 
available;  however  EU  share 
uncertain 

Fisheries 

Minimum  reduction 
in F required (% ) 

Critical  stock 

Comment 

Greenland  halibut  in  SA  2  + 
3. 

NK 

Fishing  mortality  is  considered 
above sustainable levels. Current 
TAC  advice  implies  af  50  % 
fishing 
reduction  of 
mortality 

1994 

Cod and Redfish on  Flemish 
Cap 

>-40 

Cod on  Flemish Cap 

Shrimp on  Flemish  Cap 

No assessment  is  available 

y? 

Annex  V 

Synthesis  of  professional  contributions  during 
the  regional  consultations. 

The regional  consultations  allowed  certain  facts  to be stated  and  professional  requests  made  which  should 
be  taken  into  account  in  the  procedures  arid  contents  of  MGP  IV.  These  consultations  were  organised  in 
such  a  way  as  to  allow  the  fishermen  and  other  trades  of  the  chain  and  the  local  collectives  to  express 
themselves  on  conditions  for  implementing  MGP  in  the  general  context  of  the  evolution  of  the  sector.  To 
this  end,  the  debate  was  organised  into  two  parts;  the  first  on  the  evolution  of  fishing  activities  and  the 
other  on  implementing  MGPs. 

1.  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  FISHING  ACTIVITIES 

1.1  Fishing  activities  seen  today 

The  evolution  of  such  activities  in  those  zones  dependent  on  fishing,  such  as  they  appear  in  certain 
statistics  that are  available,  express a  constant  and  preoccupying  fall  in direct  employment,  notably  in  sea 
fisheries.  The  fleet  and  it's  activities  upstream  are  the  worst  affected.  Between  90  and  95  Brittany 
effectively  lost  40%  of  its offshore  fleet  in a  global  loss of  24%  of  its  fisheries  jobs  over  the  same  period. 
Ongoing  studies  on  the  restructuring  of  the  Spanish  fleet  operating  in  international  waters  or  under  fishing 
agreements  suggest  reductions  of  a  similar  size  over  a  short  period. 

The  available  statistics  show  a  strong  tendency  towards  a  deterioration  of  the  level  of  fishing  jobs  which 
is  classically  seen  in  the  other  primary  sectors  of  the  economy,  (agriculture,  forestry).  The  only  regions 
which  appear  able  to  check  this  fall  in  direct  employment  are  those  bordering  British  waters.  The  best 
stocked  in the Community  and  capable  of benefiting  from  a certain  de-localisation  of fishing  activities  tied 
to  the  implementation  of  the  single  market.  But  even 
these  regions  have  experienced  difficulties  in 
getting  regular  landings  from  newcomers,  (quota-hoppers). 

1.2  Upstream  fishing  activities 

They  are  totally  perturbed  by  the  reduction  in  fishing  activities  Shipyards  have  experienced  the  closing  of 
sites  and  concentration  of  activities  as  the  more  competitive  parts  of  the  single  market  took  advantage. 
Some  shipyards  preserve  a  reputation  and  a  "know-how"  which  makes  them  essential  and  justifies  their 
claims  to  export  (tropical-tuna  segment). The  aid  from  fleet  modernisation  programmes  (700  million  ECU 
during  the  period  1994/99)  will  help  in  supporting  the  shipyards  activities  but  the  most  recent  subsidy 
ceilings for  construction  in  Regulation  3699/93  provoke  the clientele  into considering  offers  from  outside 
the  Union. 

The  supplies  businesses  suffer  directly  from  reduced  numbers  of  vessels  and  jobs,  as  well  as  the  use  of 
materials  over  lengthening  periods  of  time,  as  an  effect  of  the  crisis. 

1.3  Downstream  fishing  activities 

They  have  clearly  suffered  the  effects  of  lack  of  resources  and  thus  the  dwindling  of  contributions  under 
auction,  to  the  dealing  rooms  and  the  processing  industry  .However,  it's  a  long 
time  ago  that  this  latter 
sector,  for  which  permanent  transformation  came  about  several  decades  ago, as  per  the  agro-food  sector, 
obtains  supplies  on  the  international  market  and  no  longer  counted  on  its only  productive  national  sector. 

Downstream  they  know  about job  losses, and  in  the  short  term  MGP  IV  could  aggravate  this  tendency;  It 
could be that after  having expanded  the  auctions must  look  at reconversion  by  specialisation  or even  to  the 
attractions  they  can  offer  to  visiting  fleets.  Business  activities  could  be  preserved  in the  ports  which  have 
taken  a  chance  on  diversifying  into  different  species  (deep  sea  fish  )  or  contributions  (importations). 

1.4  Solutions  put  forward  by  the  professionals 

The  professionals  have  sometimes  sought  responsibility  for  over-exploitation  of 
factors 
which, while  they  exonerate  fishing  effort  management  regimes  , contribute  to  a vessels overall  turnover. 
Low  prices  for  fish  were  denounced  and  provoked  demands  for  a  revision  of  the  Common  fisheries 
Policy  The  effects  of  terrestrial  pollution,  notably  on  coastal juvenile  stocks  were  judged  responsible  for 
the  state  of certain  stocks  and  have  been  cited  as a  demobilising  factor  in  the  profession,  in  the  same  way 
as the unfair  competition exercised by certain "foreign"  fleets operating  in International  waters with  inferior 
constraints  to those of community  fishermen,  or  by  certain  "false  amateurs"  who, exempt  from  the  burdens 
of  social  and  fiscal  charges,  show  themselves  to  be  serious  competitors  and  professionals. 

resources  in 

The  anxiety  of  professionals  faced  with  the  most  important  reduction  in  fishing  activities 
in  the  fishing 
zones  expresses  itself  in  a  conservative  stance  (the  small  fleet  syndrome,  training  of young  fishermen  to 
save the profession),and  a reluctance  to diversify  ( you  will never  turn fishermen  into managers of crêperies 
or pizzerias). Beyond  these  emotional  demonstrations,  the  fisherman  himself  recognises  a  real  collective 
responsibility  which,  however,  he  has  enormous  trouble  in  assuming  at  the  level  of  his  own  personal 
behaviour unless driven by economic arguments,(increasing activity  to compensate  for scarcity  of  resources 
and/or  falling  prices).  The  notion  of  overfishing  remains  , however,  generally  the  fault  of  others. 

Putting  forward  the attraction of a port  for  foreign  vessels, initiatives to group  together activities,  grouping 
landings, and  relocating closely  linked activities from  fishing  areas are  rarely  brought about  spontaneously 
and  are  sometimes  felt  to  be  provocative.  Diversification  into  other  sectors  is  generally  considered 
carefully,  but  the  profession  thinks  that  it  will  only  have  a  slight  effect  given  the  few  alternatives  to  jobs 
lost  in  those  regions  dependent  on  fishing.  Among  the  proposed  solutions  one  will  recall  that  they  are 
aimed  at  preserving 
trade  and  existing  ports  by  discovering  new  fisheries  financed  by  countryside 
exploration  aid. 

For  the  downstream  sector,  the  idea  that  restoring  stocks  will  infer,  in  the  mid  or  long-term,  new jobs  in 
the  chain  is judged  as  doubtful  by  those  in  the  profession.  Beyond  the  social  effects  tied  to  restructuring, 
the  operations  of  the  profession  relative  to  the  positive  effects  of  successful  restructuring  of  network 
business accounts  and the competitivity  of European  products are not manifestly  central  to their  thoughts. 

During  these  consultations  on  the  evolution  of  the  fishing  activities  of  the  ZDP,  the  profession  revealed 
the  nature  of  its  everyday  preoccupations.  The  sector  as  a  whole  suggested 
that  it  was  living  in  a 
precarious  and  difficult  situation  justifying,  in  it's  eyes  whilst  waiting  for  the  stocks  or  the  market  to 
recover, a better accountability  of its difficulties,  either by a modification  of the regulations (market,  access 
to  resources)  and  financial  aid  for  new  production  investment  or  research  of  new  resources. 

2.  MULTI-ANNUAL  GUIDANCE  PROGRAMMES  AND  THEIR  IMPLEMENTATION. 

2.1  Understanding  of  the  current  regime 

2.1.1  The  regulatory  context  of  the  PCP:  controls  and  sanctions 

During  these  consultations, the  relative  aspects  of  the proliferation  of  regulatory  texts relative  to  the  PCP, 
their controls and  sanctions foreseen  for  their non -respect  had  been  at  the  centre  of  almost  all  the  debates. 
If  some  professionals  had  estimated  that  the  MGPs  were  useless, in  the  sense  that  they  have  no  effect  on 
the  sector, the  majority  of them  recognised  that,  at the  community  level,a  tool  for  following  and  orienting 
fleet  capacities  is  indispensable.  Many  consider  however  that  they  have  sufficiently  reduced  the  fleet  and 
that  it  will  be  difficult  to  take  it  further; 

<\°l 

The  profession  confirmed  that  in  these  conditions  it  was  in  favour  of  a  strict  application  of  existing 
regulations  which  seemed,  to  them,  quite  sufficient.  They  demand  a  strengthening  of  controls  without 
which  the  PCP  cannot  work.  They  insist  that  the  MGP  should  be  planned  as transparently  as  possible  and 
apply  to  all  equally.  For  those  countries  not  respecting  the  MGPs  they  suggest  a  reduction  of  quotas  and 
stopping  investment  aid; 

2.1.2.  MGP  objectives 

fleet 
Destruction  of  vessels  is  judged 
overcapacities,  so  long  as  those  leaving  are  not  compensated  for  by  new  arrivals  (management  of 
entries/departures  from  the  fleet  by  licensing  regimes)  and  the  fleet  does  not  age. Aids  to exportation  and 
the  formation  of joint  ventures  are  sometimes  considered  as  factors  aggravating  competition  in  fisheries. 

the  most  certain  means  of  eliminating  community 

to  be 

2.1.3  Parameters  for  measuring  MGP  objectives 

The  framing  of  parameters  for  power,  and  sometimes  tonnage,  has been  criticised  as a factor  in  preventing 
fleet  modernisation  for  reasons  of  navigational  security  and  respect  for  hygiene  conditions  or  increasing 
the value of production  on board. The  United  Kingdom  would  prefer  a cocktail  of parameters mixing  power 
and  tonnage  (Vessel  capacity  units). 

Many  professionals  have criticised  the  introduction  into the  MGP  of objectives  expressed  in fishing  effort 
as  opening  the  door  for  measures  to  reduce  fishing  activities  in  a  framework  which  ought  to  remain 
structural. The  activity  reductions  are not considered  as measures  with a definite  effect,  and present  control 
difficulties. 

Other  professionals  are, on the  contrary,  attached  to  this new  approach  which  is the only  one  which  allows 
polyvalent  fleets  to  be  dealt  with.  Certain  producers  organisations  representatives  have  suggested  that  an 
improvement  in  steering  the  market  relies  on  a  better  management  of  the  vessels  activities  and  that  this 
management  could  be  taken  into  account  in  MGP. 

2.2  E X P L O R I NG  NEW  AVENUES 

2.2.1  Selective  gears 

The  majority  of  professionals  think  that  resorting  to  more  selective  fishing  gears  is desirable  and  request 
financial  aid  in  order  to  popularise  their  use.  They  also  request  that  their  effects  on  fishing  effort  should 
be  accounted  for  in  MGP. 

2.X2  Stock  recovery  period 

The profession  is in favour  of  stock  recovery  periods and  request  that  their effects  should  be  accounted  for 
in  MGP  and  that  their  implementation  should  be  financially  compensated  by  IFOP. 

2.3  SPECIFIC  POINTS  ABOUT  MGP 

IV 

2.3.1  Accounting  for  technical  progress 

Few  professionals  recognise  any  effect.  The Commission's  estimation  of 2% annually  has only  been  shared 
by  Denmark,  those  others  concerned  estimating  it  to  be  at  a  level  rarely  higher  and  often  nil. 

w 

2.3.2  Base  line 

Few  comments  on this point.  It  seems  to  be  admitted  that  fixing  objectives  for  MGP  IV  must  be  based 
upon  previous  objectives. 

2.3.3. 

Segmentation 

The profession  showed that  it understood  the parameters and understood  the constraints  linked  to a more 
or less fine approach  to segmentation. These witnesses expressed  a relative  satisfaction  with  the  current 
situation  even  though  some  wished  for  a  finer  approach  and  above  all  an  exemption  from  penalties  for 
those placed  in segments which  fulfil  the programme  objectives. 

2.3.4.  Fixed  gears 

The  profession  was  largely  in  favour  of  taking  account  of  fixed  gears  but  was  divided  over  the 
opportuneness  of doing so. 

2.4  Accompanying  measures 

2.4.1  Subsidies  for  temporarily  and  finally  stopping  fishing. 

The fall  in the level of subsidies with the age of vessels ( notably  those which have been modernised) has 
been criticised despite the recent modification to regulation 3699/92. The subsidies for temporarily  stopping 
are  considered  as  indispensable  but  too difficult  to access. 

2.4.2  Subsidies  for  leaving fishing  and  pre-retirement 

These recent measures did not give cause for much comment. They seem to have been well received, even 
if they  are often  seen as a first step  in the right  direction; 

ai 

cfW«*t  3ZL 

\ 
Illustration of the decision-making process relating to the 
adoption of MGP IV. 

December 95 to 
March 96 

Preparatory  reports 

•  Socio-economic report 

Independent experts' report 

Member state reports 

Communication  from the Commission  to the Council 

10 June 1996 

Council Decision fixing the guidelines  for 
restructuring the Sector 

^. 

Bilateral  meetings Commission / Member states to translate the 
guidelines fixed by the Council to a national  framework 

November -
December 1996 

r 

* 

r 

• 

_ 1_  ^*_ 

^_^ 

ré^ 

\ 

J  V 

V 

)  \ 

13 Commission Decisions adopting 
MGP IV 

\ s. 

& 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 203 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-214-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-03879-2 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

is