REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the application of the Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
Date: 1996-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing regulations, structural policy

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  22.07.1996 
COM(96) 363  final 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  COUNCIL 
AND THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 

on  the  application  of the 
Community  system  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture 

Contents 

Introduction 

Part  I: 

Management  of  resources 

1-1 

1-2 

Application  of  the  "traditional"  management  tools 
A. 
B. 

TACs  and  quotas 
Technical  measures 

Introduction  of the  new management  tools  provided 
for  in  Regulation  (EEC)  No 3760/92 
A. 

Licences,  permits  and  regulation  of  fishing 
effort 
Definition  of  multiannual  frameworks  in  the 
management  of exploitation  rates 

B. 

1-3 

Community  fisheries  research 

1-4 

The conservation of Mediterranean fishery resources 

Part  II: 

Restructuring  the  fisheries  sector 

Part  III: 

Access  to  external  sources  of  supply  and  the  common 
market  organisation 

A. 
B. 

Adjustment  of the  common  market  organisation 
External  fisheries  agreements 

Part  IV: 

Monitoring  the  common  fisheries  policy 

A. 
B. 

The  'acquis'  of the  new  control  Regulation 
Implementing  the  control  system 

Part  V: 

The  decision-making  process 

A. 
B. 

Defining  the  decision-making  process 
Implementing  the  decision-making  process 

Conclusions 

Annexes 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 
Article  14 of Regulation (EEC) No  3760/92 of 20  December  1992 establishing 
a  Community  system  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture1  provides  that  the 

Commission  is to report, at least every three years, to Parliament, the  Council 

and  the Community  bodies representing  the  fishing  industry  on the  measures 

taken  to implement  the  system. 

This  report  reviews  the  measures  adopted  over  the  first  three  years  of 

application  of the  Regulation. 

This review  must  be  seen  against  the  background  of the  development  of  the 

common  fisheries  policy  (CFP)  since  its principles  were  established  in  1970 

and  its  foundations  laid  in  1983.  It  is  therefore  another  element  in  the 

continuous  unfolding  of  the  CFP,  and  takes  stock  of  the  improvements 

introduced  in  1992. 

2. 

The  system  established  by  that  Regulation  is  the  culmination  of  a  wide-

ranging  debate  between  30 November  1990, 
first 
communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  Parliament2,  and 

the  date  of 

the 

20  December  1992, the  date  on  which  it  was  adopted  by  the  Council  as  the 

.  new basic  Regulation. 

The mid-term review of the CFP was part of a general discussion on the way 

it  had  developed  over  the  short  and  medium  term,  and  covered,  as  the 

Commission  had  wished,  all  components  of  the  CFP:  The  discussion  was 

•  based on documents drawn up by the Commission, the starting point being the 

communication  to  the  Council  and  Parliament.  Following  one  year  of 

consultations  and  an  exchange  of  views  between  the  various  Community-

institutions, the national authorities and the industry, the communication paved 

Regulation  (EEC) No 3760/92 (OJ No L 389, 31.12.1992). 
SEC(90) 2244 of 30 November  1990. 

the way for the Commission's Report to the Council and European  Parliament 
on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  of  4 December  1991, the  "1991  Report"3. 

The  "1991 Report" itself was also the subject  of a wide-ranging  debate by the 

same  bodies,  producing  a  definition  of  a  general  outline  of  policy  most 

capable of securing the future  of the fisheries  sector and related activities over 

the next  ten years and  in particular to begin preparing  it for  "life  after  2002". 

It concluded  that  there  was a need  for  a global,  integrated  approach  enabling 

all  efforts  to  be  focused  on  ensuring  more  effective  regulation  of  the 

conditions  for  resource  exploitation  as a whole. 

There  was  close  convergence  of  opinion  on  this  approach,  both  within  the 

Community  bodies and  in the industry  itself. This consensus was reflected  in 

the unanimous adoption of the Council's conclusions at its meeting on 3 April 
19924. 
The new approach took the  form  of the adoption  of a new basic  Regulation5, 

which  introduced  new  fisheries  management  tools. Their application must  be 

assessed  in  the  light  of  the  international  and  Community  context which  has 

influenced  the  common  fisheries  policy  over the  last three years. 

Over 

that  period 

international  cooperation  between  countries  on 

the 

conservation  and  the  rational  management  of  marine  resources  intensified, 

with the coastal countries actively  seeking to increase their influence  not only 

on. resources  in  their  own  waters  but  also  on the  high  seas. 

The  negotiations  in  the  various  international  organizations  in  which  the . 

Community  took  pan  to  achieve  a  sustainable  and  rational  management  of 

fisheries- resources,  more  recently  under  the  United  Nations  Agreement  on 

straddling stocks and highly migratory  species and the FAO Code of Conduct 

on  responsible  fishing,  are  evidence  of  this.  The  results  achieved  by  the 

Commission  have made  it possible to consolidate the existing  legal  situation, 

SEC(91)  2288  of 4  December  1991. 
Minutes of the  Council  meeting  of  3 April  1992  - Doc  5763/92  -  Pêche  103 
Regulation  (EEC) No  3760/92  (OJ No  L 389,  31.12.1992)! 

. 

and have also shown the need for a strengthening of controls and  international 

cooperation. 

Specifically  for  the  Mediterranean,  the  foundations  for  a  cooperation  policy 

between the Community  and all coastal states were laid as the outcome of the 

Diplomatic  Conference  on  Fisheries  Management  held  in Crete in  December 

1994,  the  results  of  which  will  be  carried  forward  at  a  second  Diplomatic 

Conference  at the  end  of  1996. 

The common  fisheries  policy has also been affected  by developments  in trade 

policy,  themselves  influenced  by  policy  outside  the  fisheries  sector,  i.e. 

agreements  (Uruguay  Round)  and  unrelated  matters  in  pursuit  of  other 

objectives  (arrangements  under  the  Generalised  System  of  Preferences  in 

connection  with  fighting  drug  trafficking). 

The  price  decline  on  the  Community  market  in  fishery  products,  which 

particularly  affected  the  fisheries  sector  in  1993,  has  shown  that  the  sector 

cannot  escape 

the  worldwide 

trend 

towards 

trade  deregulation  and 

globalization  of markets. 

This  international  competition  makes  it  all  the  more  necessary  to  restructure 

the  Community  fleet  to  ensure  its  profitability. 

In  addition,  the  reduction  in  fishing  opportunities  under  certain  fisheries 

agreements  with  non-member  countries,  itself  due to the depletion  of  fishery 

resources, has underlined the need to develop greater cooperation and a higher 

level  of  partnership  with  these  countries  to  exploit  available  resources  and 

Contribute to the  mutual  development  of  local  economies, 

4. 

At  Community  level,  the  period  was  marked  by  adjustments  made  to  the 

accession  arrangements  for  Spain  and  Portugal  and  by the  accession  of  new 

Member  States. 

Adjustment  of the arrangements provided for in the Act of Accession of Spain 

and  Portugal  was also the subject  of a very wide-ranging  debate to which  the 

Commission  contributed  with  its  Report  to  the  Council  and  Parliament  of 

23  December  19926, the "1992 Report". On this basis the Council decided, by 
means of three successive regulations7, that adjustments  had to be made using 

the new management  tools introduced  by the CFP reform.  These  adjustments 

took  the  form  of  the  introduction  of  a  fishing-effort  system  applicable  to 

Atlantic  waters  from  1 January  1996. 

The  negotiations  for  the  accession  of  Austria,  Finland,  Norway  and  Sweden 

were  conducted  on  the  basis  of  negotiating  instructions  aimed  at  full 

acceptance  of  the  "acquis communautaire"  by  the  applicant  countries.  The 

negotiations  led  to  transitional  measures  being  adopted  to  achieve  this 

objective, enabling the new Member States to become fully  integrated into the 

CFP. 

In addition, the negotiations  with Norway produced  a package of  transitional 

measures, which, if Norway  had actually become a member, could  ultimately 

have influenced  subsequent  developments  in certain  areas of the CFP such  as 

controls  and  resource  management. 

5. 

This international and Community context underlines the urgent need to apply 

the  management  tools  laid  down  in  the  Community  system.  Therefore,  the 

extent  to which  the  objectives  have  been  achieved  should  be  examined. 

This  need  is  all  the  greater  given  the  Community  fleet's  excess  capacity, 

resulting  in overfishing  and threatening  the livelihoods  of fishing  businesses. 

All  those  involved  in  fisheries  must  realize  that  only  a  strategy  designed  to 

strike a balance  between  capacity  and  available  resources, and to sustain  this 

balance, will  be  capable  of  securing the  industry's  future. 

SEC(92) 2340 of 23 December  1992. 
- Council Regulation  (EC) No  1275/94, 30.5.1994. 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95, 27.3.1995. 
- Council Regulation  (EC) No 2027/95, 15.6.1995. 

This  examination  should  also  cover  the  extent  to  which  the  measures 

necessary for applying the decisions taken have already been applied correctly 

at all  levels of responsibility. 

*  * 

* 

I. 

Management  of  resources 

1-1.  Application  of the  "traditional" management tools 

A. 

TACs and quotas 

Within  the  framework  of  maintaining  the  current  TAC  and  quota  fixing 

mechanisms,  and  to  help  overcome  the  problems'highlighted  in  the  "1991-
Report"8,  the  Commission  systematically  proposed  fixing  TACs  at  reduced 

exploitation  levels  on the  basis  of  scientific  advice  (see  Annex I). 

Some progress was achieved, making it possible in some cases to stop or slow 

down  the  increase  in  exploitation  rates. 

Nevertheless, exploitation  rates continue to be excessive  (see  Annex  I) either 

as  a  result  of  the  Council  fixing  TACs  at  levels  that  are  too  high  or  of 

fishermen  fishing  over  quota. 

With  the  notable  exception  of  North  Sea  roundfish  (cod  and  haddock),  the 

Council did not follow  the Commission's  line when, on the basis of  scientific 

advice, it proposed reduced  TAC levels. The fact that the TACs for North  Sea 

roundfish  were  fixed  at  a  level  in  line  with  scientific  recommendations  was 

considerable  progress.  However,  this  is  still  not  enough,  because  no 

simultaneous  corresponding  reduction  in  fishing  effort  was  achieved.  The 

effort  levels  employed  were  consistently  higher  than  necessary  to  catch  the 

quotas.  This  led  to  fraud  and  discarding  at  sea.  Nevertheless,  an  overall 

intensification  of  exploitation  rates  was  avoided.  This,  combined  with 

reproduction  rates  not  quite  as  bad  as before,  made  some  recovery  possible, 

although this was weak  and  highly  relative  (see  Annex  I). 

Report  1991 from the Commission  to the Council  and the European  Parliament .on the  common 
fisheries  policy  -  Document  SEC(91)  2288  final  of 4  December  1991. 

9 

In the other sectors, TACs for many heavily overfished  stocks continued to be 

fixed  at  excessive  levels:  What  is  more,  some  TAC  reductions  are  deceptive 

because  they  are  only  a  first  step  towards  lowering  TACs  to  the  levels 

necessary  for  a  balanced  exploitation  of  resources,  while  TACs  in  the  past 

were  at much  higher  levels than  catches. 

B. 

Technical measures 

The critical assessment which the Commission makes in its communication on 

the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3094/86  of  7 October 

1986  laying  down  certain  technical  measures  for  the  conservation  of fishery 
resources9  must  be  supplemented  by  an  analysis  of  the  progress  achieved  in 

the  other  areas  covered  by  technical  measures. 

Regulation  (EEC) No  3094/8610 was updated  regularly. In addition, the scope 

of  Community  technical  measures  was  extended  to  areas  not  previously 

covered  such as the Mediterranean,  and  hitherto  unregulated  fishing  methods 

such  as fixed gear. 

Lastly, Community legislation on technical matters specific to the North-West 

•  Atlantic Fisheries Organization  (NAFO) and the Baltic was developed  to take 

account of the recommendations made by international organizations, to which 

the  Commission  made  an  active  contribution. 

Nevertheless,  the  significant  improvements  in  technical  measures  must  not 

•  distract  from  the  progress  still  to  be made. 

10. 

Communication from the Commission to the Council on the implementation of technical measures 
in the  CFP (COM(95) 669). 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 of 7 October  1986 laying down certain technical measures 
for  the  conservation  of  fishery  resources  (OJ  No  L 288,  11.10.1986). 

10 

In  its  communication  on  the  application  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3094/86 

referred  to above, the Commission proposes a substantial  revision of technical 

measures  to  strengthen  and  simplify  them  and  make  them  easier  to  monitor. 

To  achieve  this,  the  Communication  suggests  in  particular  that  mesh  sizes 

should  be  harmonized  by  fixing  them  not  by  geographical  region  but  by 

fishery.  This harmonization  will apply  in Zone III (Bay of Biscay  and  Iberian 

peninsula)  and  in the North  Sea. 

The  communication  also  proposes  an  extension  of  boxes  to  protect juveniles 

and  greater  selectivity  of  fishing  gear. 

Following the discussions on this communication, at its meeting  in December 

1995 the Council undertook  to adopt a decision on the basis of a Commission 

proposal  on  this  new  approach  to  technical  measures  to  be  submitted  to  it 

before  1 June  1996. 

7-2. 

Introduction of the new management tools provided for  in Regulation (EEC) 

No  3760/92 

! ri order to  improve the traditional  mechanisms  for  resource management,  the 

* 1991 Report" underlined the need to combine fishing-effort management with 

catch  management,  and  to  define  a multiannual  decision-making  framework. 

The  Commission  therefore  put  this  new  approach  into  practice  as  soon  as 

possible. 

A. 

Licences, permits  and regulation  of fishing  effort 

Before  a  management  system  for  fishing  effort  could  be  introduced,  it  was 

necessary  to  define  instruments  to  limit  access  to  fishing  in  general  and  to 

certain  fisheries  in  particular.  This  is  why  the  first  Commission  proposals 

11 

covered  fishing  licences  and  permits,  before  turning  to  the  introduction  of 

specific  arrangements  for  the  management  of  fishing  effort. 

The adoption  of rules on licences  granting  access to commercial  fishing,  then 

rules  on  special  fishing  permits  providing  access  to  specific  fisheries,  was  a 

decisive  stage  on  the  road  to  effective  and  transparent  management  of 
resources.  These  instruments  were  adopted  in  three  successive  Regulations11 

between  1993 and  1994 (see  Annex  IV). 

The  second,  equally  important  stage  was  the  effective  introduction  of  a 

fishing-effort management  system. 

So  far  the  system  is  restricted  to  the  Shetland  Box,  but  in  line  with  its 
"1992  Report"12  on  the  adjustment  of  the  arrangements  for  the  accession  of 

Spain  and  Portugal,  the  Commission  suggested  moving  towards  a  general 

fishing-effort management  system. 

Finally,  after  lengthy  discussions,  the  Council  decided  to  introduce  fishing-
effort  controls  for  the  Atlantic  from  1 January  199613. 

This  system,  based  on  no  increase  in  overall  fishing-effort 

levels,  full 

exploitation  of  the  Member  States'  fishing  opportunities  and  maintaining  the 

existing  balance  in  sensitive  areas,  is  intended  to  help  get  a grip  on  capacity 

and  catches. 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3690/93  of  20  December  1993  establishing  a Community  system 
laying down rules for the minimum information  to be contained in fishing  licences (OJ  No  L  341, 
31.12.1993). 
Council Regulation  (EC) No  1627/94 of 27  June  1994 laying down general provisions  concerning 
special  fishing  permits  (OJ  No  L  171,  06.07.1994). 
Council Regulation (EC) No 33 17/94 of 22.12.94  laying down general provisions concerning the 
authorization  of  fishing  in  the  waters  of  a third  country  under  a  fisheries  agreement  (OJ  No L 
350,31.12.1994). 

Report  (1992)  by  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  Parliament  on  the  application  of  the  Act 
of  Accession  of  Spain  and  Portugal  in  the  fisheries  sector.  Document  SEC(92)  2340  final  of 
23  December  1992. 
Council  Regulation  (EC) No 685/95  of 27  March  1995 on the management  of the  fishing-effort 
relating  to  certain  Community  fishing  areas  and  resources  (OJ  No  L  71, 31.03.1995,  p.  5.). 

This  second  stage  will  have  to be  introduced  gradually,  allowing  termination 

of  the  transitional  arrangements  introduced  on  the  accession  of  Sweden  and 

Finland. Finally, the fishing-effort system will have to be fine-tuned to include 

provisions  on  access  to  certain  fisheries  by  means  of  special  fishing  permits 

and to reconcile the need  for  effective  effort  management  with full  use by the 

Member  States of their fishing opportunities based on the principle of relative 

stability. 

B. 

Definition of multiannual frameworks in the management of exploitation rates 

To date the  Council  has  still not  adopted  the Commission's  proposal  defining 

objectives  and medium-term  management strategies although the proposal  has 

been  before  it  since  15 December  1993.  This  delay  is  detrimental  to  the 

effective  management  of  marine  resources,  even  though  the  proposal  is 

integral  to  the  terms  of the  current  basic  Regulation. 

Given the importance of defining  such a framework,  which was underlined  in 

the  "1991.  Report"  and  recognized  in  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3760/92,  the 

Commission  started  making  legislative  proposals  as early  as  1993. 

Practical  implementation  of the decisions on TACs and quotas since  1992 has 

only  confirmed  the need  to make the management, of resources more  flexible 

and  look .beyond  the  year  ahead,  making  it  possible  for  the  industry  to  plan 

its  activities  and  investments  long term. 

As* a basis  for  the  discussions  on the  introduction  of these  new  management 

tools, 

the  Commission  forwarded  a  communication14 

to  the  Council 

beforehand,  analysing  their  suitability  and  limits.  The  communication  was 

discussed  by  the  Council,  which  accepted  its  general  approach  (November 

14 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council  and  the  EP: "The new components  of the 
CFP and  their practical  implementation", (COM(93)  664,  Brussels,  15 December  1993). 

13 

1994).  The  Commission  tabled  two  proposals  to  put  these  into  operational 

practice,  the  first  covering  a  definition  of  medium-term  objectives  and 
strategies15,  the  second  introducing  flexible  quota  utilization16.  These  two 

aspects  are  complementary,  since  they  would  make  it  possible  to  combine 

more  ambitious  medium-term  action  with  greater  flexibility  in  short-term 

management.  In  both  cases  the  Council  recognized  the  relevance  of  the 

underlying  principles  in  the  initial  constructive  discussions.  Beyond  the 

internal  discussions  on  the  CFP,  the  need  for  a  definition  of  medium-term 

objectives  and  strategies  was  stressed  in  several  international  bodies,  in 

connection  with  the  definition  of  the  code  of  conduct,  and  at 

the 

Intergovernmental  Conference  on  the  North  Sea.  In  both  cases  the  methods 

adopted  are  in  line with  the  tools  proposed  by  the  Commission:  a  definition 

of  spawning  biomass  thresholds  and  fishing  mortality  rate plans. 

The  proposal  on management  strategies  and  objectives, was  submitted  to  the 

Council  in  December  1993. 

Initially  the  Council  showed  a  cautious  interest  (first  half  of  1994),  then 

during  its  second  discussion  (second  half  of  1994)  it  was  on  the  point  of 

adopting  it,  with  the  proviso  that  the  proposal  should  be  transformed  into  a 

directive  with  some  changes to the figures. 

Then  in  the  first  half  of  1995  the  Council  rejected  the  proposal  and  in  the 

second  half  of  1995  it  refused  to  re-enter  it  on  its  agenda.  Despite  the 

Council's  agreement  on  principle,  the  proposal  therefore  failed,  not  on 

substantive  grounds  but  on objection  to  detail.  It has now  lapsed  in terms  of 

the timetable  initially  laid  down  (1994-1997). 

15 

16 

Proposal  for  a Council Regulation  (EC) fixing management  objectives  and  strategies  for  certain 
fisheries  or groups of fisheries  for the period  1994 to  1997 (COM(93) 663  final  of  15  December 
1993). 
Proposal for a Council Regulation introducing additional conditions for year-to-year management 
of  TACs  and  quotas  (COM(94)  583  final  of  8 December  1994). 

14 

As regards the proposal on flexibility,  it will have taken the Council two years 

to  make  technical  adjustments,  overcome  its  reservations  on  its  innovatory 

nature and unanimously adopt it, with gradual introduction from  1997 to  1998. 

The  Council  will  have to re-examine  the proposal  on management  objectives 

and  strategies.  As  a  result  of  the  link  referred  to  above  between  regulating 

exploitation  rates and changes  in fishing  capacities, this question will  have to 

be  re-addressed  in the  debate  on  MGP  IV. 

1-3.  Community fisheries  research 

The  management  of  fishery  resources  requires  decisions  to  be  taken  on  the 

basis  of  scientific  analysis  alone.  Fisheries  research  is  therefore  of .great 

importance,  its  direction  changing  constantly  in  line  with  the  needs  of  the 
common fisheries policy. Since the recommendations in the M1991 Report" and 

adoption  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3760/92,  fisheries  research  has  been 

intensified  at  Community  and  national 

level,  with 

the  emphasis  on 

socio-economic  aspects .and  increased  coordination  of  research  projects  at 

Community  and  international  level. 

In  the  context  of the  fourth  framework  programme  of  European  Community 

activities 

in 

the 

field  of 

research, 

technological  development  and 

demonstration  (1994-98),  the  Commission  aims  to  provide,  by  means  of 

Community  funding  for  research  projects,  a  solid  base.for  a  balanced  and 

sustainable  exploitation  of  Community  fishery  resources  and  the  future 

development  of  aquaculture. 

In addition,  in order to have specific  information  to enable  it to formulate  its 

proposals  for  regulations,  the  Commission  contributes  to  the  funding  of 

scientific  and  technical  studies  providing  answers  to  specific  questions,  the 

results  of which flow directly  into the CFP. 

15 

Despite  such Community  encouragement,  in the Commission's  view the data 

collection  necessary  for implementation  of the CFP is still  inadequate. 

The  existing  mechanisms  should  be  improved  to  ensure  that the  data to  be 

reported  by  the  Member  States to  the  Commission  are collected,  and  make 

them available to the scientific  experts. 

Furthermore,  the  lack  of  coordination  between  the  Member  States  and  the 

Commission  mus*  be  rectified  and  roles  clarified  by  defining  research 

priorities  at Community level. 

Finally, the Commission would like to improve the dialogue between scientific 

experts  and the  world  of fishing. To this  end,  it  would  like  to  see  a greater 

flow  of  information  between  the  Commission,  the  Member  States  and  the 

industry and the distribution of the results of research to make them available 

to all. 

1-4. 

The Mediterranean fishery  resources conservation system 

.  As a result of the entry of Greece and Spain into the Community,  as well  as 

the alarming state of resources and the socio-economic importance of  fishing 

for  some  coastal  regions,  as  early  as  1990  the  Commission  submitted  a 

discussion paper to the Council with an outline fora common fisheries system 
in the Mediterranean17. 

This  communication  was  aimed  at  implementing  a  conservation  and 

management policy specifically  for the Mediterranean. The conclusions in the 

communication were adopted unanimously  by the Council. 

17. 

Communication from the Commission to the Council on an outline of a common fisheries  system 
in the  Mediterranean  - discussion  paper  (SEC(90)  1136  final  of  10 July  1990). 

16 

Since  the  "1991  Report"  encouraging  the  adoption  of a Community  fisheries 

conservation  system  in the Mediterranean, substantial progress has been made 

in  checking  the  depletion  of  certain  fish  stocks there. 

Following the discussions with the Community authorities and the industry on 

the  general  principles  of  a  conservation  and  management  policy  specifically 

for  the  Mediterranean,  the  Council  adopted  Regulation  (EC)  No  1626/94 

laying  down  certain  technical  measures  for  the  conservation  of  fishery 
resources  in the  Mediterranean,  which  entered  into  force  in  199518. 

The  Regulation  is  intended  to  improve  the  protection  of  resources  and  the 

environment  by  harmonizing  certain  existing  regulations  on  the  basis  of 

current  scientific  knowledge  and,  where  necessary,  adopting  new  provisions 

to  take  account  of  the  special  features  of  the  Mediterranean.  It  establishes 

conditions  for  the  use  and  prohibition  of  certain  types  of  fishing  gear, 

restrictions  on  their  technical  specifications  and  minimum  landing  sizes  for 

landed  fish,  as  well  as  providing  for  exceptions  to  enable  the  system  to  be 

adopted  gradually. 

Some  Member  States  have  encountered  difficulties  in  implementing  this 

Regulation,  in  particular  with  regard  to  compliance  with  provisions  on 

mandatory  fish  sizes. 

The  Commission  has taken  part  in numerous meetings  with the  industry  and 

scientific  experts  in  order  to  collect  data  and  information,  enabling  it  to 

examine  the  matter  and  propose  a satisfactory  solution. 

This  is just  the first, but essential, step - particularly  because there can  be no 

progress  without  coordination  with  the  non-EU  countries  fishing  in  the 

Mediterranean. 

Council  Regulation  (EC) No  1626/94  of 27  June  1994  laying  down  certain  technical  measures 
for  the  conservation  of  fishery  resources  in  the  Mediterranean. 

17 

The  Member  States  bordering  the  Mediterranean,  the  Council  and  the 

Commission  have  taken  a  strong  line  on  this  matter,  acting  in  complete 

unison. 

A  Diplomatic  Conference  on fishery management  in the  Mediterranean  was 

held  in  Crete  in  December  1994,  culminating  in  the  adoption  of  a  Solemn 

Declaration  on the  Conservation  and Management  of  the  Fishery  Resources 

of the Mediterranean under the terms of which those countries benefiting  from 

the  biological  wealth  of  the  Mediterranean  undertake  to  cooperate  on  the 

protection and development  of fishery  resources  in the region. 

With  a  view  to  strengthening  cooperation  between  coastal  states  and  the 

countries  which  fish  there,  the  Commission  is  already  organizing  a  second 

Diplomatic  Conference  on  Fishery  Management  in the Mediterranean  at the 

end of  1996. 

At the same time, the Community has intensified its cooperation with regional 

fisheries  organizations  operating  in  the  Mediterranean,  in  particular  the 

General  Fisheries  Council  for  the  Mediterranean.  The  Community  has  also 

taken the  necessary  steps  to  become  a member  of  this  organization  soon. It 

has taken action to transpose some of the recommendations of the international 

organizations  on resource management  into Community  legislation. 

18 

II.  Restructuring  the  fisheries  sector 

The  framework  for  structural  measures  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  has 

undergone  a number  of  substantive  changes  over  the past  few years. 

Up to  1993, it was the  Commission  itself which  selected  investment  projects 

. for  the  fleet,  aquaculture  and  processing  and  marketing  of  products  under 
Regulation (EEC) No  4028/8619. To qualify,  investment projects had to  satisfy 

a number of criteria on acceptability, conformity and eligibility of expenditure, 

and  comply  with  certain  technical  and  economic  ratios. 

Since  1993,  "fisheries"  structural  measures  have  been  integrated  into  the 

reformed  Structural  Funds under Council  Regulations  (EEC) No  2080/93 and 
(EC) No  3699/9320. This  makes  it possible  to  delegate  to the  Member  States 

major  new responsibilities {"subsidiarity'") for selecting investment projects in 

the  sector,  provided  they  comply  with  the  measures  adopted  within  the 

framework of sectoral programming  for  fisheries  {"partnership'").  Community 

financial  assistance is also meant to comply with the principles of additional'ity 

and  concentration of  funds. 

From now on, it is in this new financial  framework  that restructuring  measures 

in the  sector,  in particular  for  the  fleet,  will  be  implemented. 

In  this  respect  the  Commission's  "1991  Report"  already  recommended  a 

strengthening  of  the  links  between  conservation  measures  and  structural 

measures  so  that  the  latter  could  help  reduce  excessive  fishing  mortality  by 

eliminating  the  Community  fleet's  overcapacity. 

19 

20 

Council Regulation (EEC) No  4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve 
.and  adapt  structures  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector,  as  last  amended  by  Council 
Regulation  (EEC) No  3846/92  of  19 December  1992  (OJ  No  L 401, 31.12.1992)  (repealed). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3699/93  of  21  December  1993  lËying  down-the  criteria  and 
arrangements  regarding  Community  structural  assistance  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector 
and  the  processing  and  marketing  of  its  products. 

19 

These  recommendations  are  to  be  found  in  Title  II  of  Regulation  (EEC) 

No  3760/92  on  the  management  and  monitoring  of  fishing  activity,  under 

which  the  Council  must  set,  on  a  multiannual  basis,  objectives  and  detailed 

rules  for  restructuring  the  fisheries  sector  in  order  to  achieve  a balance  on  a 

sustainable  basis  between  resources  and  their  exploitation. 

The  Commission  therefore  undertook  to  make  this  restructuring  possible  by 

adopting  a series  of  legal  and  financial  provisions. 

The  adoption  of  binding  measures  to  reduce  fleet  overcapacity  was  made 
possible  by  Council  Decision  94/15/EC21,  which  enabled  the  multiannual 

guidance  programmes  (MGP  III)  to  be  approved. 

The  MGP  III  programmes  were  drafted  on  the  principles  of  transparency, 

equal  treatment  of the  Member  States  and  flexibility. 

However,  with  an  average  reduction  of  7%  of  fleet  power  over  five  years, 

these programmes  are not  as ambitious  as the Commission  would  have  liked, 

all  the more  so  since  this  percentage  includes  reductions  that  some  countries 

did  not  manage  to  carry  out  under  previous  programmes  and  does  not  offset 

productivity  increases  due  to  technical  progress. 

In  its  annual  reports  to  the  Council  and  Parliament  on  progress  in  achieving 

the 

targets  of  the  multiannual  guidance  programmes  (MGP  III),  the 

Commission  notes that, in spite of the generally  satisfactory  results in relation 

to  the  objectives  laid  down,  there  are  disparities  between  the  Member  States 

Council Decision 94/15/EC of 20  December  1993 relating to the objectives  and detailed rules  for 
restructuring  the  Community  fisheries  sector  over  the  period  1 January  1994  to  31  December 
1996 with a view to achieving  a lasting balance between the resources and their exploitation. (OJ 
No  L  10,  14.1.1994). 
Council  Decision  95/577/EC  of 22  December  1995 concerning the  objectives  and  detailed  rules 
for  restructuring  the  fisheries  sector  in  Finland  and  Sweden  over  the  period  1 January  1995  to 
31  December  1996  with  a  view  to  achieving  a  lasting  balance  between  resources  and  their 
exploitation  (OJ  No  L 326,  30.12.1995). 

20 

illustrated  by the  real  difficulties  some countries  are  experiencing  in  meeting 

the  objectives  or the  obvious  lack  of will  to meet  them. 

Furthermore, in implementing MGP  III, so far not one Member State has used 

the  option  of  introducing fishing-activity reduction  schemes  eligible  under  it, 

even  from  among  those  countries  which  subscribe  to  the  idea. 

Penalties  are  imposed  for  failure  to  comply  with  the  objectives  of  MGP  III. • 

The  most  stringent  requirement  for  the  Member  States  is their  obligation  not 

to  introduce  fishing  vessel  construction  schemes  or  fleet  modernization 

schemes involving an increase in fishing effort  unless they have complied with 

the  targets  in their  programme. 

Some  Member  States  which  did  not  meet  the  intermediate  objectives  of 

MGP  III  had  to  cease  awarding  national  aid  for  modernization  or  the 

construction  of  new  boats. 

The  second  penalty,  which  will  be  applied  if  the  Commission  establishes  at 

the  end  of  1996  that  a  Member  State  has  not  met  its  final  targets  under 

MGP  III, is the  infringement  procedure  under  Article  169 of the  Treaty. ••  • 

Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  these  shortcomings  and  unlike  the  previous 

programmes  (MGP  I  and  MGP  II),  whose  results  were  disappointing, 
MGP  III22 has led to a decline in capacity (see Annex  II). Although overall the 

result  will  be  highly  inadequate,  MGP  III  will,  among  other  things,  have 

provided  a general  mechanism  for  monitoring  and  controlling  changes  in  the 

Community  fleet  as  a  result  of  the  instruments  put  in  place  (Community 
register  and  remeasurement  of the  fleet2'). 

22 

23 

Commission  Decisions  92/588/EEC  to  92/598/EEC  of  21  December  1992  on  multiannual 
guidance  programmes  for  the  fishing  fleets  for  the  period  1993  to  1996  (MGPs  III). 
(OJ  No  L.401,  31.12.1992). 
Commission  Decisions 96/73/EC and 96/74/EC of 22  December  1995 on a multiannual  guidance 
programme  for the fishing  fleets  of Sweden  and Finland  for the period  1995 to  1996 pursuant  to 
Council  Regulation  (EC) No  3699/93  (OJ  No  L  14,  19.1.1996). 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 109/94 of 19 January  1994 concerning the fishing vessel register 

21 

MGP  III  will  be  succeeded  by  MGP  IV  which,  on the  basis  of  a new  report 

by  independent  experts  on  the  state  of  fish  stocks  and  comments  from  the 

industry, will  set new Community  fleet restructuring targets in order to restore 

stocks  and  allow  fishing  businesses  to  recover  financially. 

The.aim  of MGP  IV will  be to effectively  eliminate the chronic  overcapacity 

of the  fleet. 

In  order  to  soften  the  socio-economic  impact  of  the  reduction  of  the 

Community  fleet,  the  Commission  proposed  in  1986, at the  time  Regulation 

(EEC)  No  4026/86  was  adopted,  that  the  scrapping  premium  should  include 

a  premium  per  crew  member,  but  the  Council  rejected  this  accompanying 

social  measure. 

Under  the  specific  measures  covered  by  Regulation  (EEC)  No 4028/86,  in 

1991 the  Commission  attempted  to reintroduce  specific  accompanying  social 

measures  but  again  in  vain. 

In  order  to  cushion  the  impact  of  fleet  restructuring  measures  on  coastal 

communities 
the  Council  adopted 
socio-economic  measures24  in  November  1995  in  order  to  complement  the 

in  areas  dependent  on 

fishing, 

fishing-effort  adjustment  measures  with  supporting  social  measures  for 

workers, affected  by  restructuring  (early-retirement  schemes  and  voluntary 

severance  grants).  Attempts  at  introducing  such  measures  had  failed  in  the 

past,  so they  represent  something  quite  new. 

24 

of the  Community  (OJ  No  L  19, 22.1.1994). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3259/94  of  22  December  1994  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
2930/86  defining  the  characteristics  of  fishing  vessels  (OJ  No  L 339, 29.12.1994). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3699/93  of  21  December  1993  laying  down  the  criteria  and 
arrangements  regarding  Community  structural  assistance  in the fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector 
and the  processing  and marketing  of  its products  (OJ No  L 346, 31.12.93),  as amended  for  the 
third  time  by  Regulation  (EC) No  2791/95  of 20 November  1995 (OJ  No  L 283, 25.11.1995). 

22 

A wide range of financial  measures under the Structural Funds (FIFG, ERDF 

and  ESF)  is  now  available  to  accompany  restructuring  in  the  industry.  A 

special  Community  Initiative  for  fisheries  (PESCA)  makes  it  possible  to 

mobilize  all  Structural  Fund  measures  in the  designated  areas dependent  on 

fishing. 

In thé  Commission's  view,  Regulation  (EEC) No  3760/92  and the  financial 

provisions of the  Structural  Funds are an essential  element which will  make 

it possible to restructure the fleet in close harmony with resource conservation 

measures. However, the conditions in which restructuring is to be carried out 

must  be  better  defined.  The  Council  in  particular  will  have  to  adopt 

appropriate  measures  so  that  the  size  of  the  fleet  can  be  adjusted  to  the 

resources actually  available. 

23 

III.  Access  to  external  sources  of  supply  and  the  common  market 

organisation 

A. 

Adjustment  of the common  market organisation 

In its communication  on the crisis in the Community's  fishing  industry25,  the 

Commission  described  and  analysed  in  1994  the  structural  handicaps  of 

Community  production. 

Examination  of  the  market  situation  and  the  constraints  typical  of  it  makes 

efforts  to  adapt  capacities  to resource  potential  all  the more  pressing. 

The  climate  of  international  competition  determined  by  the  Community's 

international undertakings in the context of a globalised economy, the fact that 

production  is more expensive  in the Community  than in some of its partners, 

and  the  serious  decline  in  supplies  to  the  Community  market,  all  mean  that 

Community output potential must be optimised while ensuring that supply and 

demand  are better  matched. 

Proposals to that effect  were introduced  by means of a reform  of the common 
market organisation  which entered  into force  in  199526 and which stresses the 

strengthening  of the role  of producer  organisations  and  an expansion  of their 

resources  towards  improvement  of  product  quality  and  of  their  ability  to 

intervene  on the  market. 

B. 

External fisheries  agreements 

25 

26 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  Parliament  on  the:crisis  in  the 
Community's  fishing  industry  (COM  (94)  335  final,  19.7.1994). 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3318/94  of  22  December  1994  (OJ  L  350,  31.12.1994)  amending 
Regulation  (EEC)  N°  3759/92  on  the  common  organisation  of  the  market  in  fishery  and 
aquaculture  products. 

24 

On the  basis of the  "1991  report"  the  Council  confirmed  the  importance  of a 

broad network of appropriate fisheries agreements with non-member countries. 

The fisheries  agreements represent  20% of Community production  of  seafood 

products,  and  are  an  important  contribution  to ensuring  security  of  supply. 

* 

In addition to their political and economic importance towards the outside, the 

fisheries agreements allow the Community  fleet  access to resources other than 

those  found  in the  Community's  own  fishing  areas. 

Lastly,  the  agreements  make  it  possible  for  the  Commission,  as  part  of  the 

undertakings  made  under  its  exclusive  powers,  to  fulfil  the  international 

commitments  which  it  has  subscribed  to  (responsible  fishing  etc.). 

The  fishing  agreements  are  not  limited  to  this  aspect;  they  also  make  it 

possible to increase cooperation between the Community and the non-member 

countries  concerned. 

There  are  several  basic  types  of  fishery  agreement:  the traditional  agreement 

with  financial  compensation  and/or  trade  concessions  or  reciprocity,  and  the 

'second  generation'  agreement  with  provision  for joint  enterprises. 

The  Community  tries  to  make  each  of these  proposed  agreements  match  the 

socio-economic peculiarities of each country and include integrated partnership 

mechanisms  which  are  more  consistent  in the  iong term,  and  which  apply  to 

activities  upstream  and  downstream  of  actual  fishing  so  as to  arrive  at  more 

lasting  cooperation  with  third  countries: 

4) 

25 

IV.  Monitoring  the common  fisheries  policy 

A. 

The  'acquis' of the  new  control  Regulation 

Confronted  with  inadequacies  in  controls  and  non-compliance  with  the 

common  fisheries  policy,  the  Commission  -  in  its  1991  Report  and  in  its 
Report  on monitoring  implementation  of the  common  fisheries  policy27  - put 

forward  proposals  to  reinforce  monitoring  and  transparency. 

Following  a  thorough  debate  involving  all  the  Community  bodies  and 

operators, the Council  in  1993 adopted  a new control  regulation applicable  to 
the CFP28. 

This  new  system  provides  for  overall  and  integrated  monitoring  covering  all 

aspects  of the  CFP  and  applying  to all  operators  in the  fishing  sector.  Under 

the new rules it is possible to monitor the activities  of Community  fishermen 

more  closely  regardless  of  which  area  they  are  fishing  in. 

To make monitoring  credible, the control  Regulation  requires Member  States 

to  apply  dissuasive  penalties.  The  new  system  also  strengthens 

the 

Commission's institutional  facilities  so that it can fully  exercise its function  of 

supervision  over  the  national  fisheries  inspectorates. 

Lastly,  the  system  also  opens  the  door  to  modernisation  through  the  use  of 

modern  technology,  in  particular  satellite-based  continuous  position-finding 

systems  and  computerised  systems. 

27 

28 

Commission  Report to the Council  and  Parliament on monitoring  implementation  of the  common 
fisheries  policy.  Document  SEC(92)  394,  6.3.1992. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October  1993 establishing a control system applicable 
to the common  fisheries  policy  (OJ  L 261, 20.10.1993),.as amended  by Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No2870/95of  8 December  1995  (OJ  L 301,  14.12.1995). 

26 

In  1995, the  control  regime  was  amended,  adding  to  the  existing  provisions 

so  as  to  include  measures  aimed  at  the  monitoring  and  inspection  of  fishing 

activities  subject  to fishing-effort restrictions. 

Alongside  the  new  system,  the  Council  adopted  a new  financial  decision  on 
a Community  financial  contribution29  whose scope and budget  appropriations 

are  commensurate  with  this  increase  in  control  duties. 

This  regulatory  framework  gives  Member  States  the  legal  and  financial 

instruments  to  allow  them  to  guarantee  effective  and  transparent  monitoring 

of  fishing  activities. 

B. 

Implementing  the control  system 

In  its  Report  on  monitoring  the  common  fisheries  policy30,  the  Commission 

noted  the  deficiencies  in  inspections  carried  out  by  Member  States. 

In  general  terms the report  notes  Member  States' delays  in  implementing  the 

new  control  provisions. 

The low level of resources committed casts doubts on the effective  application 

of  the  control  Regulation  by  certain  Member  States  even  where  they  have 

called  on  Community  financing  to  develop  these  resources.  Some  even  lack 

the  means  to  provide  airborne  monitoring,  which  greatly  reduces  the 

effectiveness  of inspections at sea. With regard to the application of sanctions, 

there  are  major  discrepancies  within  the  Community  in  both  the  procedures 

used  and  the  size  of  the  penalties,  and  this  is  inducing  a  feeling  of  unequal 

29 

30 

Council  Decision 95/527/CE of 8 December  1995 on a Community  financial  contribution  towards 
certain  expenditure  incurred  by  the  Member  States  in  implementing  the  monitoring  and  control 
systems  applicable  to. the  common  fisheries  policy  (OJ  No  L 301,  14.12.1995). 
Annual  report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  Parliament  on  monitoring  the  common 
fisheries  policy  (COM  (96)  100  final,  18.3.1996). 

27 

treatment  among  Community  fishermen  and  a  greater  inclination  to  commit 

fraud. 

In  addition,  the  lack  of  information  transmitted  by  the  Member  States  has 

stopped  the  Commission  from  evaluating  the  effectiveness  of  controls  on 

markets, product  transport  and  structural  policy. 

Despite  these  shortcomings,  the  Commission  feels  that  it  is too  early  to  give 

a  definitive  assess nent  of  the  impact  of  the new  control  Regulation.  Certain 

provisions  concerning  in particular  computerisation  and  the  introduction  of a 

satellite  position-finding  system  will  apply  only  in  1996-97. In any  case, this 

first report was only intended to help reduce the lack of transparency  between 

Member  States  in fisheries control. 

The Commission  hopes that  Member  States will  note these shortcomings  and 

be encouraged  to cooperate  in developing  harmonised  and  increased  levels of 

controls. 

The  Commission  for  its part  will  adapt  the utilisation  of  its own resources  so 

as to  achieve  this  objective. 

Nevertheless,  this  adjustment  is  likely  to  be  restricted  by  the  heavy  burden 

inherent  in controls  in international  waters  (NAFO, driftnets).  In this respect, 

the  Commission  hopes  that  the  Member  States  concerned  will  promptly 

assume  the duties  which  fall  upon  them. 

Irrespective of that problem, the Commission  feels that from now on it should 

give  priority  to: 

validating,  with  a  view  to  more  transparency,  the 

information 

transmitted  by  each  Member  State  in  the  form  of  control  reports  and 

of  indicators  of  resources; 

28 

taking  into  account  the  monitoring  of  the  fields  newly  included  in 

fisheries  control  at  Community  level:  structural  policy,  in  particular 

assessment  of  catch  capacities,  parallel  monitoring  of  fishing  effort, 

links  with  market  monitoring,  the  possibility  of  inspections  during 

transport,  development  of  the  possibilities  of  systematic  cross-checks 

on the  various  sources  of  information  against  each  other; 

the  problems  which,  in  each  fishery,  constitute  a  source  of  major 

infringements  of Community rules likely to harm other Member States, 

such  as  the  quota  overruns  in  the  North  Sea  and  the  Baltic  and  the 

ignoring  of technical  measures; 

coordination  among  the  national  authorities  responsible  for  controls 

and  between  those  authorities  and  the  Commission.  The  faster 

implementation  of  new  technologies  (satellite  monitoring,  data-links, 

etc.)  defines  the  first  area  of  cooperation.  But  it  is  not  the  only  one: 

coordination  of measures at sea, as demonstrated- by the monitoring  of 

the  Atlantic  tuna  fisheries,  requires  intervention  at  Community  level. 

The  same  is  true  of  monitoring  the  catches  of  vessels  fishing  in  the 

exclusive economic zone of one Member  State and  landing fish in the 

port of another Member State. Generally speaking, the Commission has 

an  important  role  to  play  in  the  coordination  process  in  order  to 

encourage  synergy  and  allay  suspicion. 

Given a political  will  backed  up by a general  awareness, further  essential  and 

rapid progress on monitoring will be possible. This would make it possible  for 

the common fisheries policy to achieve objectives which have so far  remained 

out  of  reach  but  which  experience  has  showed  to  be realistic. 

29 

V. 

The  decision-making  process 

A. 

Defining  the  decision-making process 

The  "1991  report"  stressed  the  need  to  share  responsibilities  between  the 

Member  States  and  the  Commission  with  regard  to  both  developing  and 

implementing  new rules. 

In  this  context,  the  Community's  role  was  to  be  limited  basically  to 

establishing  the principles  and  it would  be up to the Member  States to  devise 

suitable  procedures  according  to  the  specific  nature  of  their  legislative  and 

administrative  systems. 

With  the  same  aim  in  mind,  the  report  proposed  simplifying  the  battery  of 

rules in order to ensure transparency, a prerequisite for their better acceptance, 

and  the  decision-making  process  itself  in order  to  slim  down  procedures. 

The  Commission  had  proposed  when  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3760/92  was 

adopted  that  there  should  be  only  two  decision-making  procedures  in  the 

context  of management  of exploitation  rates, and it had urged the Council not 

to  chose procedural  methods  likely  to  undermine  the  decisions  in this  area. 

Along  these  lines,  the  Commission  put  forward  a  proposal  under  which  it 

would be the Council's task to adopt management objectives and strategies and 

to set the quota distribution  keys among  the  Member  States using the  Article 

43 procedure  (Council  decision  after  consulting  Parliament,  on the basis  of a 

Commission  proposal)  and  the  Commission's  job  would  be  to  apply  the 

Council  Decisions  automatically  after 

receiving 

the  opinion  of 

the 

Management  Committee.  This  would  help  to  make  the  decision-making 

procedures  more  flexible  and  relieve  the  Council  of  the  burden  of  technical 

dossiers  which  do  not  require  any  policy  decisions  from  it. 

30 

Despite  the  flexibility  shown  by  the  Commission  during  the  discussions  in 

Council, the latter rejected the proposal and proposed maintaining the principle 

of  annual  Council  Decisions  by  majority  vote  fixing  TACs  and  quotas  and 

fishing-effort ceilings. 

This  failure  to delegate  decision-making  to the Commission  for  the  adoption 

of technical and repetitive decisions is hampering the work of the Council  and 

very  often  results  in delays  in adopting  measures  vital  to the management  of 

fishing  activities. 

B. 

Implementing  the decision-making  process 

Over  the  past  few  years,  discussions  on  the  implementation  of  the  common 

fisheries  policy  have  become  more  rational  and  now  generate  less  passion. 

This  underlines  the  greater  political  will  that  now  exists  on  the  part  of 

Member  States  and  an  awareness  of  the  need  to  establish  a  responsible  and 

rational  common  fisheries  policy. 

As  an  example, the process  for  fixing  TACs  is now  largely  devoid  of  drama 

and  unanimity  is usually  achieved  after  a few  hours  of debate. 

Nevertheless, this progress  should  not  obscure .the  difficulty  of passing  from 

an  agreement  on general  principles  to  actual  decisions  (see  Annex  IV). 

In  some  cases,  Commission  proposals  based  on  recommendations  from 

scientists or groups of independent experts are not agreed on and are amended 

by  the  Council  to  the  detriment  of  an  efficient  and  rational  management  of 

resources. 

The  discrepancies  between  Commission  proposal  and  final  Council  decision 

affect  all  levels  of the  common  fisheries  policy. 

31 

As  regards  conservation  of  resources,  TACs  are  sometimes  fixed  at  levels 

higher  than  those  recommended  by  the  Commission  and  the  proposed 

technical  and  control  measures  are  diluted  by  introducing  stipulated  time 

periods  and  special  exemptions;  the  rules  adopted  for  the  Mediterranean  are 

an  obvious  example. 

In  the  structural  field,  the  capacity-reduction  targets  in  the  multiannual 

guidance  programmes  have  been  adjusted  downward. 

It  can  also  take  longer  to  adopt  decisions  than  originally  intended;  decisions 

are  put  off  until  the  point  comes  when  they  cannot  be  delayed  any  further, 

with  consequent  difficulties  for  the  fishing  industry. 

Such  delays  are  still  occurring  in  all  areas of  the  common  policy. 

The  most  significant  example  is  the  delay  in  the  Council's  adopting  the 

proposals  on quota  flexibility.  The  Council  is still  considering  the  objectives 

and management  strategy proposed  by the Commission  in  1993, which  arises 

directly  from  the basic  Regulation  (EEC) No  3760/92. 

Finally  the  Commission  would  like  to  point  out  that  various  proposals  have 

become  blocked  which  were  requested  by thé  Council  in the first place.  For 
two  years  no  majority  could  be  found  for  the  proposal  on  driftnets31,  after 

which,  in  1994,  the  Commission  produced  a  communication  reporting  on 

driftnet  fishing  at the request of the Council together with a proposal  covering 

the  regulatory  action  to  be  taken. 

However,  some of thèse negative tendencies have been  palliated  by a  greater 

awareness of key issues within the industry itself and the constructive  support 

of  Parliament  and  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  in  backing  the 

31  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the  use  of  large  driftnets  under  the  common  fisheries  policy 

(COMC94)50/5,  10.2.1995). 

•" 

-

'32 

relevance of various Commission proposals. The Commission  has contributed 

to  this  trend  by  making  an  effort  to  be  transparent  at  all  levels,  by  staying 

alert  to  problems  and  solutions  pointed  out  by  different  industry  actors,  and 

by organising seminars and meetings to keep the fishing  industry informed  and 

involve  it more  in the  future  development  of  the  common  policy. 

This increased responsibility  in the industry  for  defining  the goals of resource 

management  must  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the  other  side  of  the  coin,, 

however,  i.e. the  industry's  obligations  under  the  management  regime. 

* 

* 

CONCLUSIONS 

1. 

This assessment of the reporting period has shown that the results achieved  so 

far  in  addressing  the  goals  the  Community  has  set  itself  provide  ample 

justification  for  continuing with the efforts  made  since  1991 to strengthen  the 

foundation's  and  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  'acquis  communautaire'. 

The progress achieved in conserving and managing resources has still not been 

enough.  The  new  management  tools  are  not  becoming  operational  quickly 

. enough. The targets to reduce overcapacity  have still  not been attained.  There 

are  still  several  gaps  in the  implementation  of the  control  mechanisms. 

We need  therefore  to look  at the directions  which  must  be taken  to move  the 

common  fisheries  policy  forward,  towards  making  the  Community's  fishing 

activities  balanced  and  sustainable  and  therefore  capable  of  producing  a 

reasonable  economic  return. 

33 

2.  We need to prepare the  future  course to be followed  both in the short term, 

i.e. over the next three years, and in the medium term, the year 2002 being an 

special  and symbolic  date  for the CFP; the course which will  make possible 

a durable preparation for the long term. 

The  2002  deadline  marks  the  expiry/renewal  of  three  components • in  the 

legislation  currently  in force: 

access  to  waters  inside  the  12-mile  limit  (Article  6  of  the  basic 

Regulation), 

the  rules  applying  to  the  "Shetland  Box"  (Article  7  of  the  basic 

Regulation), 

the  rules  of  access  to  the  North  Sea  for  vessels  from  Spain  and 

Portugal (1985 Act of Accession) and from Sweden and Finland (1994 

Act of Accession). 

Before  the deadline, these  aspects of the CFP will  have to be analysed and a 

report drawn up following  the same procedure  as in 1991. 

•  On the first component, the Commission will  make proposals to the Council 

for  provisions  to  replace  the  current  rules.  If  there  is  no  Council  decision 

before  31  December  2002,  the  rule  restricting  access  to  those  waters  will 

disappear. It seems unlikely,  given the current state of affairs, that there will 

be a desire to modify  this aspect of the  'acquis  communautaire'. 

On the second, the absence  of a Commission  proposal  or a Council  decision 

before  the  same  deadline  would  lead  to  a  roll-forward  of  the  existing 

arrangements. 

On  the  third  point,  the  absence  of  a  decision  either  during  the  transitional 

period  or by the  2002  deadline  would  lead to the  application  of  the 'acquis 

communautaire'  as  it  currently  exists,  i.e.  free  access  to  waters  on  a non-

34 

discriminatory  basis  for  all  Member  State  fleets,  access  to  resources  being 

based  on  the  principle  of  relative  stability  for  regulated  species  and 

unrestricted  for  non-regulated  species. 

The other aspects of the CFP, in particular certain fundamental  principles such 

as  relative  stability,  are  not  likely  on  the  face  of  it  be  called  into  question. 

Changes  can  be  made  to  them  only  if  a  formal  political  will  to  do  so  is 

expressed. 

The basic ingredients of the CFP's structural policy are covered by the current 

programming period under the Structural  Funds, which ends on 31 December 

1999.  It  is  likely  that  an  MGP  V exercise  will  succeed  MGP  IV  but,  unless 

the  conditions  for  access  to  fisheries  under  the  existing  arrangements  are 

radically altered, the progress of the MGPs should not be affected  by the 2002 

deadline. 

Other  non-fishing  aspects  may  also affect  progress,  such  as the results  of the 

Intergovernmental Conference, future expansion of the Union or developments 

in  international  relations. 

3. 

The Commission  considers that now, over the next three-year period, and not 

in the next millennium,  is the time to intensify  the efforts  already  undertaken 

to supplement  and  consolidate  the  existing  structure  so  as  to  secure  a  long-

term  improvement  in  the  industry. 

The  fundamental  aims  of  the  measures  to  be  taken  must  be  to  avoid  the 

collapse  of  fisheries  by  attaining  a better  match  between  available  resources 

and capacities, in order to put Community fishing  enterprises back on the road 

to profitability.  These aims will have to be achieved using an approach  which 

is  not  strictly  economic  but  which  will  also  have  to  be  integrated  into  the 

overall  development  of regions  dependent  on. fishing,  in particular  as regards 

employment  and taking  into  account  environmental  concerns. 

35 

The  management  tools  relevant  to  the  objectives  adopted  must  be  applied  in 

full.  Those for which legal  instruments have already been adopted, such as the 

fishing-effort management  scheme, must be implemented effectively.  The next 

few years must be put to use in evaluating their results in the areas where they 

have been implemented,  in particular the Atlantic and, if necessary, the Baltic. 

Expansion  of  these  management  instruments  to  other  Community  fishing 

zones,  in  particular  the  North  Sea,  will  make  it  possible  to  complete  the 

transitions  provided  for  in  the  Acts  of  Accession  for  Spain  and  Portugal  and 

Finland  and Sweden. The Commission  will, therefore,  at the appropriate time, 

be proposing  suitable  fishing-effort  management  schemes  for  fisheries  in  the 

North  Sea,  for  instance,  and  even  the  Mediterranean. 

Improvements  to  the  use  of  the  existing  management  instruments  must 

continue, in close  liaison  with  intensifying  and  improving  scientific  research. 

It  would  seem  better  to  introduce  catch-reducing  measures  at  an  early  date 

time rather than waiting for  certain  stocks to deteriorate to such an extent that 

a moratorium  on fishing  has to be imposed, creating an extreme  situation and 

one damaging  to the  survival  of companies  as well  as to market  stability  and 

security  of  supply. 

These  improvements  must  also cover technical  measures. The measures to be 

taken,  in close cooperation  with  the Member  States and the industry,  concern 

first  of  all  the North  Sea,  the  Mediterranean  and  Region  III. 

Improving  the  management  instruments  means  both  better  knowledge  of  the 

scientific  and statistical  data  and better dissemination  of this knowledge. This 

improvement'  in  the  flow  of  information,  to  be  made  accessible  to  all 

interested  parties,  should  encourage  understanding  and  therefore  acceptance 

of  the  proposed  measures. 

The  implementation  of  MGP  IV  during  the  coming  months  will  be  a crucial 

factor  in finding an equilibrium between fishing  opportunities and the capacity 

of  the  Community  fleet,  in  order  to  break  the  spiral  of  overinvestment  -

36 

overcapacity - excess costs, with its concomitant reductions in profitability  and 

loss  of activity  for  fishery  businesses.  The  survival  of  fishing  businesses,  the 

safeguarding  of jobs at sea and on land and therefore  the future  of the industry 

will  depend  on  finding  this  balance. 

The adoption of an effective  monitoring  system, at all  levels of responsibility. 

is  the  sine  qua  non  for  the  success  of  a  truly  sustainable  fisheries  policy. 

Close  attention  will  therefore  have  to  be  paid  to  improving  the  monitoring 

system  as a whole to ensure its coherence, consistency  and homogeneity.  The 

opportunities  offered  by  new  technologies  such  as  satellites  will  have  to  be 

exploited  to  the  full  and  the  best  possible  information  flow  must  be  ensured 

through  computerised  networks.  Realisation  of  a  powerful  Community 

monitoring  system  does  not  mean  stepping  up  Community  intervention  as 

such,  but  everybody's  tasks  and  responsibilities  should  be  clearly  defined. 

The development of responsible, and therefore monitored, and environmentally 

sound  fishing  is at the  heart  of the  international  undertakings  entered  into  by 

the Community  within the United Nations and  FAO over the past three years. 

The  next  few  years  must  see  their  effective  implementation  both  at  internal 

and  at international  level. The environment  must  be  integrated  into these  in a 

positive,  not  a  negative  way.  Sustainability  of  fishing  activities  is  only 

achievable  if  the  environment  is  also  protected;  fishermen  and  traders  must 

obviously  have  a positive, decisive  role  in this  if these  adjustments  are  to be 

carried  through  with  proper  account  taken  of  fishing  industry  interests. 

In  this  context,  close  attention  will  have  to  be  paid  to  the  Mediterranean 

region.  The  CFP  is  less  developed"  here  than  in  other  regions  of  the 

Community  and  the  state  of  resources  is  particularly  worrying.  In  addition, 

international  cooperation 

is  particularly  necessary  here  because'  of  its 

geography.  However,  we  should  make  the  point  that  nothing  will  be  done 

without  the  manifest  political  will  of the  Member  States  concerned. 

37 

The  Commission  therefore  calls  on  all  those  in  the  sector,  at  political, 

administrative  and  industry  levels, to do all they  can and  must to put  in place 

the  elements  of a fisheries policy  which  will  guarantee  that  fishing  itself  has 

a  future. 

The  Commission  believes  that,  to  ensure  both  clarity  in  the  political  debate 

and  effectiveness  in  the  work  of  the  institutions,  only  the  major  decisions 

should  be  taken  at  Council  level  after  the  opinions  of  Parliament  and  the 

Economic  and  Social  Committee  have  been  obtained.  A  decentralised 

decision-making  process  together  with  a  system  of  regional  consultation 

encouraging  dialogue  between  representatives  of  the  industry  and  scientific 

circles could  usefully  improve the operation  of the CFP. Subsidiarity  must be 

applied  to this  sector  as  broadly  as possible,  at all  levels  of  responsibility. 

This also applies to rationalisation of funding,  in particular sharing the burden 

between  Community  and  national  budgets,  so  as  to  ensure  the  best 

cost/effectiveness  ratio. 

4. 

The  results  of  this  first  three-year  phase  will  condition  the  success  of  the 

process  leading  on preparations  for  the post-2002  period. 

If  the  next  phase  can  be  regarded  as  a period  of  consolidation,  the  one  after 

it  will  probably  focus  on  assessing  the  future  challenges  to  the  CFP  and 

identifying  the major  issues for  discussion.  In this context,  all  those  involved 

in  the  fisheries  sector  will  once  again  need  to  define  the  directions  to  be 

explored  in  ensuring  a  balanced  development  of  fisheries  management, 

including the socio-economic aspects, the profitability  of businesses, policy on 

employment  and regional  development,  and an appraisal  of the role that each 

party  should  play. 

On  the  basis  of  an  open  debate,  it  should  then  be  possible  to  formalise  the 

options  chosen  and  arrive  at  the  necessary  decisions  before  31  December 

2002. 

•  . 

38 

The  Commission  hopes,  as  it  tried  to  demonstrate  in  its  1991  report,  that 

discussing  the  future  of  fishing  can  go  on  being  a  lively  affair  without 

becoming  overladen with emotion. 

39 

ANNEX I 

Changes  in  TACs  over  the  reporting  period 

40 

ANALYSIS OF 1996 TAC proposal and evaluation of the status  of stocks 
based on the most recent  assessment 

NOTES: 

(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
not available: 

Decisions depend on consullalion wilh third countries  or international  organisations 
Part of the TAC available to Member Stales 
As roported by Member Slates 
No catch forecast available 
Either not provfded or not useful In terms of TAC 

STATUS: 1= lightly exploited; 2= fully exploited; 3a  heavely  exploited; A-  risk of depleatlon; 
F= fluctuating; U= unknown; U/2*« unknown, but presumed, fully exploited; 
U/3** unknown, but presumed heavely exploited. 
Assessment quality:  ^~ good analytic assessment; 2= medium quality Information; 
3= little or nothing known 

•ÇK 

c W3lli,^pwln\33\lac90\analysl$ 

Page 1 

Overzicht van de bestanden waaruit in 1995 meer dan 5 000 ton door communautaire vaartuigen is gevangen 

Soort 
Haring 

-

Ansjovis 

Kabeljauw 

Schartong 

Zeedyivel 

Schelvis 

Wijting 

Heek 

Blauwe wijting 

Langoustine 

%verschil 
voorstel 

1994 

1995 

Voorstel Com-

Raming 1995 
Toestand 
best and 

Kwaliteit 
raming 

Aanbeveling 
ACFM of STECF 

Voorstel 
Commissie(l) 

1996 

| 

2 

3 

1 

Basis 

TAC(1) 

F min 3 0% 

7200|  7200 

V-'?$  108600 

13095 
4040 

TAC(1)  Vangst 

'12297 
4106 

missie(1)  jTAC(1)  Vangst(2) 

w * ' 3 i > * ?|  «fc?24**|  •fflêttfciçfiik&àatf 

* $ # H ^ 2 2 2 N H a b . & V t l ^^ 
6700|  TAC 1995 

i i ' r i 9 3 5 0|  49350  ^ 1 8 9 69 
6247 

121450 
257950 
50000 
55140 
28000 
21000 
30000 
12000 

#55001 
242736 
42079 
52125 
27827 
18901 
26772 
1393 

283200 
262400 
50000 
70140 
28000 
21000 
33000 
12000 

""•1*.  -0,0 
0,0 
9.4 
0,0 
9,3 
0,0 
0,0 

«4*172230 
50000 
76710 
28000 
16500 
33000 
12000 

#F$l/2g$ 
Ml  --.-. 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 
3 

*gstmr 
; 3V 
N/3* 
1 
2 
.  3 
F 
N 

H$l 77813 
•'«1258222 
42919 
62468 
26659 
18325 
28515 
7559 

*t$283200 
262400 
50000 
55140 
28000 
21000 
30000 
12000 

?••&•  172230 
50000 
70140 
28000 
15100 
33000 
12000 

als oVereengek; 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
F min 20 % 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 

pnn s 3f!2 ni 3 •rnïfô j^iO^itfirtfr*] fi i ^^rfTtWTÏTi W WAffK*} F$£i$Mftl ' 
"VF-«ilnJ50-%iv.!i^ 
niet beschikbaar 
niet beschikbaar 
récente niveaus 
F  min  60 % 
niet beschikbaar 
niet beschikbaar 

Zone 
rjiEn^. .•^:^^;:^^3 Kî^^y r^afcj i^^Ur:W-K^ ira->id sy^Mfesa ESir^k^^ ^.:^^%^3 lyio^aiimu^^Hiu^ ^ v . ^ i t ' ^^ J a^^ii^xi;-ii^ ^ ^ ^ u^  L ; : ;. .:.,^3 
I l l b c ^ j ^ ^ ^ l t i f t f 'S 
llalVabiu*::•••:  : :• 
IVc Vlld 
Vb VlaN, Vlb 
VlaS, Vllbc 
Vllghj 
VIII 
IX, X, CECAF 
M P ^ ^ ^ ^ B ^^ 
Ilia Skaaerrak #  u 
Ilia Kattegat 
BIEgELi&^^K^^^ 
Ha IV&*,*<-*  .,  -> 
108600 
13000 
Vb VI XII XIV 
VII ex. Vila 
17000 
VII Vlllahsamen 
22590 
VII 
20000 
Vb VI XII XIV 
8600 
VII Vlllab samen 
23150 
VII 
18000 
Vlllabd 
L 5 1 50 
Q O ^ ^ & I J IS uwumtffl mm*&^ï&&}mmm  mi&mmmm  e a d ^ H ^^ 
131741 
21000 
Vb VI XII XIV 
J  21000 
1 aanzienl.verlaging 
6000 
VII VIIIIX X CECAF|  6000 
48581 
|  niet beschikbaar 
l l ^ r c u ^ i iM f 1 - w m t tM  ^ 
Vb VI XII XIV 
Vllb-k 
N. stock (ll-Vlllab) 
Vb VI VII XII XIV 
Vlllabde 
Vlllc IX X CECAF 
Vb VI VII Vlllab 
Vlllc IX X CECAF 
lia IV 
Vb VI XII XIV 
VII 

aanzienl.verlaging 
niet beschikbaar 
F min 30 % 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 
laagst mogel.niv. 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 
récente niveaus 

F min 20 % 
TAC  1995(xxx) 
F min 20 % 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 
F min 20 % 
TAC 1995 
TAC  1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC 1995 
TAC  1995 

<tfpttiirraoa6*jt' 
F min 20 % 
niet beschikbaar 
geen verhoging F 
als hierboven 
récente niveâus 
geen verhoging F 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 

als overwngék. 
TAC  1995 
TAC 1995 
st.quo voorspelc 
als hierboven 
TAC 1995 
st.quo voorspelc 
als hierboven 
als hierboven 

•-ft'J  116900 
13000 
17000 
16600 
14700 
8600 
30300 
23560 
6740 

^«F^'10,0 
0,0 
17,6 
27,7 
29,3 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

§?*103563 
9726 
17744 
15428 
13918 
6437 
24266 
18535 
5731 

•#916900 
13000 
20000 
21200 
19000 
8600 
30300 
23560 
6740 

6800 
29000 
60000 
33550 
22490 
11500 
113000 
55000 
35000 
12600 
20000 

.J,-3/4<\ 
4 
3/4 
2 
2 
2/3 
2 
2 
2 

10000 
25000 
43100 
24170 
16120 
7000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
23000 

6800 
31000 
55120 
30910 
20620 
10000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
20000 

6275 
28266 
46946 
24946 
20029 
7063 
31954 
35552 
13863 
12788 
18153 

6800 
31000 
31000 
18550 
12370 
5300 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
20000 

10000 
28000 
51000 
28660 
19120 
9000 
93000 
55000 
15200 
12600 
23000 

6063 
26743 
42190 
21495 
18147 
5372 
31131 
32289 
13403 
11362 
16358 

i  ':-\p># 
1/2 
1/2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

78798 
10210 
15375 
13026 
12072 
6484 
20285 
15451 
4834 

93070 
13000 
17000 
20330 
18000 
8600 
23800 
18500 
5300 

0,0 
12,0 
18.3 
18,6 
18,6 
28,6 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 

13000 
17000 
20330 
18000 
8600 
21400 
16630 
4770 

2 
2 
1/2 
" 
•• 
2 
" 
" 

3/4 
3 
4 
•• 
" 
4 
" 
M 

F min 20 % 
TAC .1995 

20000 
6000 

22900 
6000 

22900 
7000 

17836 
6464 

1/2 
3 
3 

0,0 
16,7 

2 
2 
2 

7700| 

14,9 

1 
1 

3 
3 

| 

Page 1 

Page 2 

HAKE  Northern  S l o ck 

R e c r u i t m e nt  A ge 0 a nd S SB 

600  -r 

200 

150 

+  100  2o 

Years 

Recruitment Age 0 

' — Spawning Stock Biomass 

Landings  and  Fishing  Mortality  Age  1-4 

G E3  Landings 

L 

'Fishing  Mortality 
Age  1-4 

erf=  escape  rate to  fisheries  : 

tep  = taux d'échappement  à la  pèche 

75  % ->Fm=0.298 

50 Vo ->Fm=0.6'93 
25 %->Fm= 1,386 

,o.nf... 

IACO  ACTW  (1995^ 

44-

E u r o p e an  ComnV.ssion-XlV/C/l  -FO 

Plaice  N S ca 

Recruitment  Age  0  and  SSB 

^ Recruitment  —-
Age 0 

"Spawning 
Stock  Biomass 

Landings  and  Fishing  Mortality  Age  2-10 

r-~ t 

1400  -r 

1200  4-

£  400 

180 «r 

160  + 

U0  + 

£  120  + 

2  100  + 

80  + 

ë  -60  + 

40  + 

2o+ra 

e > o o o c o c 3 o q 3 o c r > o > o> 
i c i c n c n o cn 
o i o o o c n o c r

f^^Pi  Landings 

Lc 

"Fishing  Mortality  1 
I 
Age  4-8 

erf=  escape  rate  to  fisheries  : 
tep = taux  d'échappement  à la  pèche 

75  % ->Fm=0.298 
50 % ->Fm=0.693 
25 %->Fm=  1.385 

Source  : ICES.  ACFM  (1995) 

if 

European  Couinhrr.iOn-XlV/r./'. 

CO0_r\!onh Sea (IV) 

Recruitment  Aae  1 and  SSB 

'.Recruitment  Age  1 — ' - S p a w n i ng  Stock  Biomass. 

Landings  and Fishing  Mortality Age  2-8 

1 0 00  -T-

900  + 

350-T-

B5Z3J Landings 

'Fishing  f-'onality 
Age  2-5 

erf= escape  rate to  fisheries  : 
tep = taux d'échappement  à la pêche 

75 % ->Fm=0.298 
50%->Fm=0.693 
25 %->Fm=1.386 

. o . j . r <. 

ICC  S  A C . F f « A ( l 9 9 5) 

% 

ANNEX  n 

Changes  in  the  Community  fleet 
measured  against  MAGP  targets  (1984-95) 

% of targets 
in  1986 

35 

1987 1 9 88  i g 89 

1S-:TU  -jgai 

•  ^ f * * * * ? ^^ 
-QQ2  -n n- 
19-2  199<9  1 9 94 

i g 95 

« 

^ 

year 

actual situation 

targets 

The diagram  shows changes  in the Community  fleet  measured  against the targets of  MAGPs 
I, II and III, expressed  in kW of engine power, for the period from 1984 to  1995. After  several 
years  where  the  actual  situation  was  well  out  of  step  with  the  targets  (1984  to  198-7),  the 
situation  then  seems  to  right  itself  as the two graphs  converge  rapidly  towards  a meeting  of 
the  MAGP  III targets. This  trend  would  be  even  clearer  if gross  register  tonnes  (GRT)  had 
been  chosen  as  the  measure  for  both  real  situation  and  targets,  since  these  objectives  have 
been better met. 

44 

ANNEX  III 

Community  fishing  areas 

<8 

JURISDICTIONAL  CLAIMS  OF" EU  MEMBER  STATES 

20V 
-.Outer bounds of jurisdictional claims of EC member states (heavy dashed line) 

Fie. 
which define EC domestic waters in the Northeast Atlantic, and ICES Statistical Areas. 
(Depth contours are 200 m -solid.Vine, 1000 m - fmedashed line.) 

10° 

, 

. 

4? 

ANNEX  IV 

' 

Legislative work from  1992 to mid-1996 

Implementation  of  the  Community  system  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture 

Subject 

Commission  proposal 

Council  Decision 

Comments 

I 
Management  of 
resources 

1-1 
TACs  and  quotas 

V 

Proposal  of 23.11.95  (COM(95) 
615/2,  5.12.95),  supplemented 
by  delegation  procedure  on 
19.12.95  (COM(95)  741/1, 
21.12.95)  laying  down  TACS 
for  1996  and  certain  conditions 
under  which  they  may  be 
fished 

Regulation  (EC) No  3074/95  of 22  Dec. 
95  fixing,  for  certain  fish  stocks  and 
groups  of  fish  stocks,  the  total  allowable 
catches  for  1996  and  certain  conditions 
under  which  they  may  be  fished  (OJ  No 
L 330,  30.12.95,  p.l). 

On  a number  of  stocks  for  which  the  Commission  had 
proposed  significant  TAC  reductions  in  view  of  their 
deterioration,  the  Council  has  preferred  deferring  the 
reductions  until  later,  worsening  the  situation  of  these 
stocks. 

Some  of  these  TACs  involve  a biological  risk  (mackerel, 
herring,  plaice,  hake). 
For the  others, the  increased  TACs  will  mean  serious 
declines  in  fishing  opportunities  in  the  short  term  (sole, 
megrim,  coalfish). 

1-2 
Fishing  licences,  special 
fishing  permits, 
authorization  of  fishing 
under  fisheries 
agreements 

Proposal  of  15.10.93  for  a 
Council  Regulation  establishing 
a Community  system  of  fishing 
licences 
(OJNoC  310,  16.11.93) 

-  Delay  in  adoption  of the  management  instruments  by 

Council.  The  Council  had  to  adopt  three  decisions  within 
one  year  to meet  deadlines. 

-  The  Council  adopted  the Commission's  proposal  without 
substantive  changes,  which  shows  that  the Council  takes 
some  time to overcome  its  reluctance  to  consider 
innovatory  proposals. 

-  Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 
3690/93  of 20  Dec.  1993 
establishing  a Community  system 
laying  down  rules  for  the  minimum 
information  to  be contained  in 
fishing  licences  (OJ  No  L 341, 
31.12.93) 

-  Council  Regulation  (EC) No 

1627/94  of 27  June  1994  laying 
down  general  provisions  concerning 
special  fishing  permits  (OJ  No L 
171,6.7.1994) 

-  Council  Regulation  (EC) No 

3317/9.4  of 22  Dec.  1994  laying 
down  general  provisions  concerning 
the  authorization  of  fishing  in  the 
waters  of  a third  country  under a 
fisheries  agreement  (OJ  No  L 350, 
31.12.94) 

1-3 
Management  of  fishing 
effort 

-  Proposal  for  a Council 

Regulation  (EC) 
establishing  the rules  for 
access  to  certain 
Community  fishing  areas 
and  resources 
(COM(94)  308/F,  13.7.94) 
Proposal  for  a Council 
Regulation  establishing  a 
system  for  the  management 
of  fishing  effort  relating  to 
certain  Community  fishing 
areas and  resources 
(COM(95) 237, 6.4.1995) 

-  Council  Regulation  (EC) No  685/95 
of 27.3.95  on  the management  of  the 
fishing  effort  relating to  certain 
Community  fishing  areas  and 
resources (OJ  No  L 71, 31.03.95, 
P-5). 

-  The Council  rejected  the  Commission's  proposal  based  on 

standard  vessel-days  at  sea  (SVDs)  and  drew  up a 
compromise  based  on  days  spent  in  an  area, which  is 
multiplied  by  engine  power  expressed  in  kW to give 
fishing  effort. 

Council  Regulation  (EC) No 
2027/95  of  15.6.1995  establishing  a 
system  for  the  management  of 
fishing  effort  relating to  certain 
Community  fishing  areas  and 
resources 
(OJ  No  L  199, 24.8.95,  p. 1). 

The  Council  took  two years  and  two  regulations  to 
introduce  a fishing-effort  scheme. 
The final decision  resembles  the  Commission's  original 
proposal  in substance, the changes  being  mainly  ones  of 
form. 

1-4 
Flexible quota 
management 

Proposal  of  8.12.1994  for a 
Council  Regulation  introducing 
additional  conditions  for  year-
to-year  management  of  TACs 
and  quotas 
(COM  (94)  583  final,  8.12.94) 

The  Council  adopted  the  Regulation 
introducing  additional  conditions  for 
year-to-year  management  of  TACs  and 
quotas  on  22  April  1996. (Not  yet 
published  in  the  OJ) 

1-5 
Management  aims and 
strategies 

Proposal  of  15.12.1993  for  a 
Council  Regulation  fixing 
management  objectives  and 
strategies  for  certain  fisheries 
or groups  of  fisheries  for  the 
period  1994  to  1997 
(COM  (93)663  final,  15.12.93) 

Adoption  consequence  review  of  the 
Regulation  on  Flexibility 

The Council  decided  to  reduce  the  amount  of  year-to-year 
flexibility. 

The  penalties  proposed  by  the  Commission  were  reduced 
by  the Council. 

The Council  will  have  taken  almost  two years  to  introduce 
technical  adjustments  and  to overcome  its  reserve  about 
the  innovatory  nature  of the Commission  proposal. 

Delay  of  more  than  two years  in  adopting  rules  which  are 
meant  to  facilitate  the  management  of fishing activities  by 
more  planning  of  these  activities. 

The  proposal  has  become  bogged  down  in  the Council, 
which  has  buried  it under  objections  to  details  that  do  not 
affect  the  substance. 

1-6 
Driftnets 

1-7 
Mediterranean  fisheries 

Proposal  for  a Regulation  of 
8.4.1994  on  the  use  of  large 
driftnets  under  the  common 
fisheries  policy 
(COM(94)  131  final,  08.04.94) 

Proposal  for  a Regulation  of 
12.11.93  laying  down  certain 
technical  measures  for  the 
conservation  of  fishery 
resources  in the  Mediterraneann 
(COM (93)  306,  12.11.93, 
p. 10) 

Still  before  the  Council 

This  proposal  was  originally  made  at the  request  of the 
Council  itself. 

Council  Regulation  (EC) No  1626/94  of 
27.6.1994  laying  down  certain  technical 
measures  for  the  conservation  of  fishery 
resources  in the  Mediterranean 
( O J N oL  171,6.7.94,  p.l). 

Compared  with  the  Commission's  proposal,  the  Council  has 
softened  some  provisions  by  introducing  exemptions  over 
various  periods  (some  running  up  to 2002). 

& 

H. 
Restructuring  of  the 
fisheries sector 

Proposal  of  9.11.93  for  a 
Council  Decision  relating  to 
the objectives  and  detailed 
rules  for  restructuring  the 
Community  fisheries  sector 
over  the  period  I  January 
1994  to  31  December  1996 
with  a  view  to  achieving  a 
lasting  balance  between  the 
resources  and  their 
exploitation  (COM(93) 544, 
9.11.93) 

Council  Decision  94/15/EC  of  20.12.93 
relating  to  the  objectives  and  detailed 
rules  for  restructuring  the  Community 
fisheries  sector  over  the  period  1 
January  1994 to  31  December  1996  with 
a  view  to  achieving  a  lasting  balance 
between  the  resources  and  their 
exploitation 
(OJNo  L  10,  14.1.1994) 

The  Commission's  original  proposals  were  watered  down  by 
the Council  (cut  of  40%  in  required  capacity  reductions). 

-  demersal  stocks 

-  benthic  stocks 

-  pelagic  stocks 

Commission 

Council 

-  30% 

-  20% 

- 0% 

- 20% 

-  15% 

- 0% 

-Pi. 

III 
Monitoring 

III. 1 
Monitoring  of  the 
common  fisheries  policy 

III.2 
Control  of  fishing  effort 

Proposal  of29.10.92  fora 
Council  Regulation  establishing 
a  control  system  applicable  to 
the common  fisheries  policy 
(COM(92) 392  final,  29.10.92) 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  2847/93 
of  12.10.1993  establishing  a  control 
system  applicable  to  the  common 
fisheries  policy 
(OJNo  L 261, 20.10.93) 

Proposal  of  13.7.1994  for  a 
Council  Regulation  amending 
Regulation  (EEC) No  2847/93 
establishing  a control  system 
applicable  to the  common 
fisheries  policy 
(COM  (94)  309  final,  13.7.94) 

Proposal  of  12.6.1995  for  a 
Council  Regulation  amending 
Regulation  (EEC) No  2847/93 
establishing  a control  system 
applicable  to  the  common 
fisheries  policy 
(COM(95)256  final,  12.6.95) 

• 

The  Council  rejected  this  proposal. 

.Council  Regulation  (EC) No  2870/95  of 
8  Dec. 1995  amending  Regulation  (EEC) 
No  2847/93  establishing  a  control 
system  applicable  to  the  common 
fisheries  policy 
(OJ  No  L 301,  14.12.95,  p.l) 

The  Council  decided 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

to  defer  until  1.1.96, then  to  1.7.96,  its  decision 
establishing  a system  of  continuous  position-finding  by 
satellite 
to  adopt  at  a  later  date  the  list  of  species  to  be recorded  in 
log  books 
to  defer  until  1.1.99 the  application  of  certain  provisions 
to  fishing  operations  in  the  Mediterranean 
to  drop  the Commission"^  proposal  to  suspend  or  reduce 
the  Community's  financial  assistance  is cases  where  the 
'control' Regulation  is not  complied  with. 

In  its compromise  of  December  1994,  subsequently 
transposed  into  Regulation  (EC) No  685/95  of 27  March 
1995  introducing  a  fishing-effort  scheme, the  Council 
redefined  the  content  of  the  monitoring  rules  on  fishing 
effort. 

The  Council  has  extended  the  hail  system  to  all  fisheries, 
whereas  in  the  Commission's  proposal  the  hail  system  applied 
in the  Irish  Sea  and  otherwise  according  to  fishery. 
Similarly,  the  Council  has  introduced  from  1998  the  rule  that 
each  vessel  must  report  its  catches,  which  was  not  provided 
for  in  the  proposal. 
At  the  same  time,  the  Council  decided  to  defer  until  30  June 
1997 a decision  on  integrated  data  management  system 
(networks). 
In  addition,  it has  softened  the  application  of  the  hail  system 
by  allowing  exemptions  for  certain  types  of  fleet, 
complicating  the  application  of  the  hail  system  and  involving 
extra  costs. 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 363  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-364-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-07171-4 

Office for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg