COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - FISHERIES AGREEMENTS - Current Situation and Perspectives
Date: 1996-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing agreement, fishing regulations

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  30.10.199e 
COM(96) 488  final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

FISHERIES  AGREEMENTS 

Current  Situation  and  Perspectives 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Council  Resolution  of  3  November  19761  laid  the  foundation  for  the  conclusion  of 
fisheries  agreements.  After  twenty  years  of  experience,  the  Commission  considers  it  is 
opportune  to  reflect  on  its  external  fisheries  policy2. 

SECTION  I 

1.1 

Development  of  the  fisheries  agreements  1977-1996 

The  Community's  policy  on  fisheries  agreements  came  into  being  officially  with  the  Council 
Resolution  of  3 November  1976  foreseeing  the  extension  by  Member  States  of  their  fishing 
zones  off  their  North  Atlantic  and  North  Sea  coasts  to  200  miles  with  effect 
from 
1  January  1977. This  decision  was  taken  in  order  to  protect  Community  interests  in  the  face 
of  unilateral  declarations  by  several  countries  extending  their  sovereignty  to  200  miles  from 
their  coasts  which  threatened  to  interrupt  traditional  fisheries  by  Community  vessels  The 
resolution  stated,  on  the  one  hand,  that  fishing  by  third-country  vessels  in  fishing  grounds 
conducted  within  the  200-mile  Community  zone  must  be  subject  to  agreements  between  the 
Community  and  the partner  countries  concerned,  and, on  the other  hand,  that  the  maintenance 
of  existing  fishing  rights  and  the  obtaining  of  new  rights  for  Community  fishermen  in  third-
country  waters  should  be  determined  within  the  framework  of  appropriate  Community 
fisheries  agreements. 

This  policy  on  fisheries  agreements  was  necessary  to  safeguard  an  important  part  of  the 
fisheries  sector  which  ensures  vital  economic  activity  -  and  therefore  employment  -  in  the 
Community  in  general  and,  more  particularly,  in  the  coastal  regions  mainly  dependent  on  the 
fisheries  sector. 
It  furthermore  contributes  significantly  to  ensuring  that  the  Community 
market  is  supplied  with  fish  products. 

The  Community's  fisheries  agreements,  initially  confined  to  the  North  Sea,  have  since  been 
extended  to  other  waters.  At  present,  the  Community  has  concluded  26  agreements,  15 with 
countries  in  Africa  and  the  Indian  Ocean,  10 with  North  Atlantic  countries  including  5 in  the 
Baltic  Sea,  and  one  with  -a Latin  American  country. 

OJ  No  C105,  7.5.1981 

This  communication  is  complemented  by  the  Commission  services  working  document  on  fisheries 
agreements  prepared  for  the  European  Parliament  Seminar  in  Quimper  on  13/14  May  1996. 

Since  their  introduction,  there  has  been  a  steady  evolution  in  the  nature  and  range  of  our 
fisheries  agreements.  The  accession  of  Spain  and  Portugal  in  1986,  with  their  own  network 
of  fisheries  agreements  and  that  of  Sweden  and  Finland  later,  provided  an  important  impetus 
to the development  of  the Community's  fisheries  agreements.  For  those  agreements  involving 
a  financial  cost  to  the  Community,  the  international  fisheries  agreement  budget  has  expanded 
from  6 MECU in  1981 to 280  MECU  in  1996 and the corresponding  fishing  possibilities  have 
increased  from  13  900  GRT  to  132  000  GRT  (plus  the  additional  136  600  tons  quota  in 
Greenland). 

The  Commission  has  furthermore  been  mandated  by  Council  to  negotiate  new  agreements 
with  Latin  American,  African  and  other  states3 

l.Z 

Nature  of  the  agreements 

Types  of  fisheries  agreement 

There  is no  single  "agreement  type".  Rather  the  nature  of  the individual  agreements  reflects 
the  objectives  and  economic  interests  of  the  respective  parties.  When  the  agreement  with 
Argentina  involving  the  promotion  of joint  ventures  and joint  enterprises  was  concluded  in 
May  1994,  it  was  considered  a  "second  generation  agreement"  and  all  previously  concluded 
agreements  were  termed  "classical"  or  "first  generation  agreements" 

The Community  has concluded  a range of different  types of agreements  with  partner  countries 
in  the  context  of  its  external  fisheries  policy  They  cover: 

the reciprocal  agreements  under  which the Community  offers  partner  countries  fishing 
opportunities  in  the  waters  of  its  Member  States  against  equivalent  opportunities  for 
Community  vessels  in  their  waters  (Norway,  the  Faroe  Islands,  Iceland  and  the  Baltic 
Republics); 

the  agreements  on  access  to  surplus  stocks  for  Community  vessels  to  fish  in  the  waters 
of  a  third  country  (United  States4,  Canada5), 

the agreements  on  access  to  resources  for  Community  vessels  in  exchange  for  financial 
compensation  (ACP  countries  of  Africa  and  the  Indian  Ocean,  and  Morocco  in  certain 
respects); 

the  agreement  on  access  to  resources  under  licence  and  joint  venture  arrangements  in 
return  for  financial  compensation  and  market  access  (Greenland) 

Mandates  for  new  agreements: 

Latin  America:  Chile,  Peru,  Lcuador,  Colombia,  Venezuela,  Uruguay 
Africa: 
Other  areas: 
Hxpired  at  the  end  of  1()93 
Canada  has  not  yet  ratified  the  1992  Agreement 

Gabon,  South  Africa,  Mozambique,  Namibia 
Poland,  Russia  and  USA 

3 

and  finally,  the agreement  with Argentina involving  the constitution  of joint  enterprises 
and joint  ventures. 

Each of  these models  has its own  distinct  rationale  and can be  understood  notably  in  relation 
to  historical  fishing  patterns  and  arrangements,  the  state  of  development  of  the  partner 
countries' fisheries  sector or the presence of  common  fish  stocks occuring  in  the  fishing  zones 
of  the  Community  and  the  third  country. 

The  Council's  adoption  of  a  negotiating  mandate  for  Latin  American  countries  in  October 
1990  signalled  the  first  major  change  in  the  Community's  policy  on  fisheries  agreements 
since  it  sought  to  take  account  of  the  potential  commercial  possibilities  in  countries  with 
already  developed  fisheries  sectors.  The  main  innovation  in  this  approach  was  that  access  to 
fishing  possibilities  in  the  waters  of  Latin  American  countries  would  be  based,  not  on  the 
granting  of  fishing  licences  by  partner  countries,  but  on  the  constitution  of joint  enterprises 
and  joint  ventures  in  the  fishing  industry  between  Community  vessel  owners  and  the  third 
country's  fishing  interests. 

1.3  Basic  principles 

The  fisheries  agreements  are  negotiated  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  contained  in  the 
negotiating  directives  decided  by  Council.  Their  negotiation 
is  based  notably  on  the 
principles  contained  in  the  UN  Law  of  the  Sea  Convention  and,  in  the  case  of  ACP  States, 
also  complies  with  the  ACP/EC  Convention.  Account  is  taken  of  the  rights  and  obligations 
of  coastal  states and  those  of  the  Community,  and  particularly  the  need  for  cooperation  in  the 
international  context.  A  key  objective  pursued  is to  ensure  the  conservation  and  rational  and 
sustainable  use  of  the  fisheries  resources  concerned. 

In  relation  to  the  fishing  of  stocks  surplus  to  the  requirements  and  harvesting  capacity  of 
coastal  states,  the  guiding  tenet  for  the  agreements  are  the  relevant  provisions  of  Article  62 
of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea  (UNCLOS)  and  the  ACP/EC  Lomé 
Convention. 

Fisheries  agreements  have  been  commercial  in  nature  from  the  outset,  namely,  the  provision 
of  fishing  opportunities  for  the  Community  fleet,  either  in  exchange  for  other  fishing 
possibilities  for  partner  countries  or  the  payment  of  financial  contributions.  However,  this 
commercial  character  in  no  way  dissipates  the  Community's  commitment  to  the  conservation 
of  resources  in  the  waters  of  our  partner  countries,  as  reflected  in  the  fishing  levels  and 
conditions,  control  arrangements  etc.  foreseen  in  the  agreements. 

In  the  case  of  ACP  States,  fisheries  agreements  are  a specific  element  of  overall  Community 
policy  towards  these  countries.  In  accordance  with  Article  130  V  of  the  EC  Treaty,  this 
element  has  obviously  to  be  consistent  with  the  Community's  development  policy  as  laid 
down  in  the  ACP/EC  Convention.  Therefore,  whilst  the  objective  of  our  agreements  is  not 
to  develop  the  domestic  fishing  industry  of  our  partner  country,  including  the  artisanal 
fisheries,  the Community  nevertheless  must  ensure  that  the agreement  does  not  constrain  their 

development or viability. 

However, the agreements with ACP countries have their own philosophy, which is not based 
on development objectives. The commercial  concept in this case has to be understood as the 
definition  of mutual  concessions of both parties, in other words, a balance between  what the 
Community  receives  in  terms of  fishing  possibilities  and what  it  pays  to  the third country 
concerned. 

The  global  compensation  consists  essentially  of  financial  contributions,  paid  by  the 
Community  and  by  the  shipowners  through  the  licence  fees,  but  also  by  "development 
minded" actions,  supported  by  the  shipowners,  such  as  ere win g  by  nationals  of  the  ACP, 
landing obligations on catches, observers on board vessels, etc.,  specifically  requested by the 
third country  during the negotiations. 

In the context of  a commercial  transaction, the partner country  is completely  free to choose 
the final destination of the financial  compensation of the agreement. Usually, the vast majority 
of the compensation is attributed to the Treasury with a part being devoted to specific  actions 
in the national fishing sector, scientific  research on stocks, training in the fisheries sector and 
inspection  services  etc.  The contribution  of the scientific  and training programmes  in most 
of the partner countries has enabled them to train or retrain a large number of their nationals 
in  various  areas  of  the  fishing  sector,  as fishermen, observers,  scientists,  economists  and 
engineers for the processing industry.  A welcomed development in relation to the attribution 
of funds is that the new Agreement with Morocco foresees  30% of the total financing being 
devoted over the four years of the Agreement to the development of the Moroccan  fisheries 
sector. 

Increased emphasis is now being given  in the Agreements to promoting effective  control on 
the  fishing  activities  through  observer  and  inspection  programmes,  the  financing  of  the 
inspection infrastructure  in our partner countries and the establishment in the Member States 
of specific  inspection  programmes for vessels fishing under the agreements. 

SECTION  II 

HOLE  OF  THE  FISHERIES  AGREEMENTS 

Overall!  objectives 

The objectives  laid  down  for  the fisheries  agreements  in the negotiating  directives  adopted  by 
Council  have  ensured  a  key  role  for  the  fisheries  agreements  in  the  Community's  Common 
Fisheries  Policy.  These  objectives  relate  particularly  to  the  direct  and  indirect  employment 
related  to the  fishing  activities, the level  and stability  of  fishing  opportunities  provided  for  the 
Community  fleet;  the  fish  and  fish  products  from  Community  sources  supplied  to  the 
Community  market  and the  agreements  role  in the  Community's  structural  policy  for  its  fleet. 

2,1  Socio-economic  aspects 

One  of  the  principal  raisons  d'être  for  these  agreements  remains  social  and  economic  in 
nature.  By  maintaining  or  expanding  fishing  possibilities  for  the  fleet  in  third  country  waters, 
the  agreements  protect  the  level  of  direct  employment  on  fishing  vessels  and  indirect 
employment  in  on-shore  processing  facilities  and  related  industries  within  the  Community. 
Consequently,  the continued  existence of these agreements  is vital  for  the coastal  communities 
dependent  on  our  fisheries  sector  as  these  communities  are  generally  situated  in  regions 
economically  disadvantaged  where there are few, if any, alternative  employment  opportunities. 

An  estimated  20  000  persons  from  the  Community  are  directly  employed  on  1.300  fishing 
vessels  operating  under  our  fisheries  agreements.  Conservatively,  and  based  on  socio 
economic  regional  studies,  it is estimated  that  one  sea-based job  generates  one  land-based  job. 
Therefore,  a  further  20  000  persons  are  employed  in  the  fishing  industry  and  the  ancillary 
services  directly  related  to  these  agreements.  This  dimension  is  best  illustrated  by  the 
agreement  with  Morocco  which  accounts,  by  itself,  for  over  8  000  fishermen  directly 
employed  on  the  vessels. 

The  creation  and/or  maintenance  of  employment  associated  with  the  fisheries  agreements  is 
not  confined  to the  Community,  since these agreements  also generate  employment  possibilities 
in  the  fishing  sectors  of  our  ACP  partner  countries.  The  agreements  foresee  the  recruitment 
of  local  fishermen  on  our  fishing  vessels  with  the  number  depending  on  the  size  of  the 
vessels.  Observers  are  also  placed  on  board  and  the  need  for  repairs,  supplies  and  other 
services  for  our  vessels  creates  further  jobs  in  our  partner's  ports.  The  research  institutes  and 
inspection  services  of  our  partners  also  benefit  from  additional  employment  directly  resulting 
from  the  operation  of  the  agreements.  Where  the  agreements  foresee  obligatory  landing  by 
Community  vessels  in  our  partner  countries  they  contribute  to  employment  in  the  fish 
processing  industries  in  those  countries. 

2.2  Markets 

A  further  important  objective  of  the  Community's  agreements  is  the  supply  of  fish  products 
to  the  Community  market  from  Community  sources.  The  Community  market  constitutes  the 
largest  fish  market  in  the  world  with  over  9  million  tons  in  1993.  In  i\mt  year,  the  value  of 
imports  was  7  billion  ECU  and,  in  quantitative  terms,  3.6  million  tons.  In  value  terms,  this 
exceeded  the production  within  the  Community  which  reached  6  billion  ECU  for  6.7  million 
tons. 

In  this  context,  it  is  important  to  utilise  and  develop  the  instruments  which  will  ensure  that 
the  supply 
to  the  Community  market  from  Community  sources  maintains  its  relative 
importance.  The  fisheries  agreements,  when  combined  with  catches  by  our  vessels  in 
international  waters,  contribute  approximately  25%  of  the  Community's  overall  production. 
Therefore,  the}' constitute  an  important vehicle  to ensure  the supply  to  the  Community  market 
and  reduce  our  trade  deficit  in  fisheries  products. 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  deficit  has  increased  greatly  in  recent  years,  particularly  between 
1988  and  1990,  and  now  is  equivalent  to  54%  of  value  in  terms  of  our  market  needs.  This 
trend  can  be  explained  by  the  expansion  in the  market  itself  due to  the  accession  of  Spain  and 
Portugal  in  1986  and  the  strong  growth  in  the  demand  for  fisheries  products  which  has  seen 
per  capita  consumption  rise  from  15  kg  to  22  kg  in  the  period  1983-90. 

Our  fish  processing  industry1 employs  110  000  persons  working  in  2  500  to  3  000  companies. 
The  issue  of  supply  to  the  Community  market  from  Community  sources  is  significant 
therefore  in  order  to  avoid  over-dependence  on  imports  from  third  country  sources  for  the 
supply  of  raw  materials. 

The  Community,  through  its  fisheries  and  development  policies,  has  unilaterally  put  in  place 
special  preferential  regimes  for  imports  of  fish  products  from  ACP  countries,  Morocco  and 
Greenland.  These  concessions  grant  considerable  market  advantage  to  certain  of  our  fisheries 
partners as  fish  products  from  ACP  countries  enter the Community  market  duty-free  and  most 
Moroccan  fish  products  benefit  from  a  similar  advantage.  In  addition,  in  the  context  of  the 
agreements  with  Argentina  and  Greenland, 
fishery 
products  of  interest  to  those  countries  but  these  are  erga  omnes  in  nature.  However,  with  the 
progressive  dismantling  of  the  world's  tariff  barriers  following  the  Uruguay  Round,  world 
markets  will  become  increasingly  more  open  and  foreign  competitors  will  be  able  to. compere 
in  the  Community  market,  with  a  level  of  costs  in  some  cases  welt  below  their  Community 
counterparts. 

tariff  concessions  were  granted  on 

Certain  of  the  fisheries  agreements  foresee  voluntary  or  compulsory  landings  of  catches  by 
Community  vessels  in the ports  of the countries where  the  Community  fleet  is operating.  Both 
compulsory  and  voluntary  landings  promote  increased  economic  activity  in  these  countries. 
In addition,  there are landings  of high-quality  species which  may  be  used  either  for  processing 
and  subsequent  export  or  supply  to  the  local  market. 

2.3  Fisheries  resources 

A joint  commitment  to  the  conservation  and  rational  management  of  the  fisheries  constitutes 
In  conformity  with  international  law  and  UNCLOS,  it  is 
a  key  element  of  the  agreements. 
the partner  country  and  not  the  Community  which  determines  the  existence  of  surplus  stocks 
and  which  consequently  decides  the  level  of  fishing  possibilities  on  offer  and  the  fishing 
conditions  accorded  to  the  different  fleets,  including  the  Community  fleet.  The  appreciation 
of  the  status  of  the  stocks  is  the  responsibility  of  the  coastal  state  and  since  our  fisheries 
agreements  actively  encourage  research  on  the stocks, negotiations  for  the  renewal  of  fisheries 
agreements  are  based  on  research  data  often  collected  under  programmes  financed  by  the 
Community.  In  recent years, when  catch  rates have  demonstrated  problems  with  specific  fish 
stocks  in  certain  agreements,  the  Community  has  unilaterally  sought  reductions  in  its  fishing 
possibilities  in  order  to  safeguard  those  stocks. 

The  fishing  zones  within  which  the  Community  fleet  operate  are  designed  to  exclude 
interference  with  the  artisanal  fisheries  of  the  countries  in  question  and  where  a  country  has 
an  industrial  fishing  fleet,  the  level  of  fishing  possibilities  offered  to  the  Community  takes 
account  of  their  needs.  However,  most  of  the  ACP  countries  with  which  the  Community  has 
fishing  agreements  do  not  possess  a  significant  domestic  industrial  fleet.  Consequently,  the 
Community's  fisheries  are  harvesting  resources  which  might  otherwise  remain  unexploited  or 
would  be  fished,  often  illegally,  by  vessels  from  other  countries;  in  either  case  with  no 
advantage  to  the  ACP  country. 

The  Community  fleet's  presence,  in  contrast  to the  presence  of  vessels  from  non-Community 
countries,  is  well  regulated  and  in  ACP  countries,  defined  under  clear  licensing  procedures, 
with  measures  for  the  control  of  our  fleet's  activities;  the  placement  of  observers  on  the 
vessels;  inspections  at  sea  and  in  port.  Community  vessels  are  obliged  to  comply  with  the 
technical  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Agreements  in  relation,  inter  alia,  to  authorised  fishing 
zones,  gear  and  mesh  sizes. 

The  Commission  has  increasingly  targeted  the  implementation  of  measures  both  in the  waters 
of  our  ACP  partner  countries  and  within  the  Community,  to  ensure  that  the  conservation  and 
technical  measures  carefully  elaborated  in  the  negotiations  are  adhered  to  by  the  Community 
vessels  concerned.  To  that  end,  there  is  financing  available  under  the  agreements  to  enable 
the  third  country  to  strengthen  its  inspection  services  and  new  control  systems  (satellite)  will 
permit  increased  and  more  accurate  surveillance.  This  instrument,  linked  with  the  observers 
improve  control  systems.  Equally,  specific 
on  board  the  vessels,  should  significantly 
inspection  programmes  targeting  the  vessels  operating  under  certain  agreements  have  been 
developed  by  the  Member  States  and  an  administrative  cooperation  has been  established  with 
the  inspection  services  of  the  partner  countries. 

2.4  Utilisation  of  fisheries  agreements 

Fisheries  agreements  are negotiated  in order  to  provide  potential  access  for  the  Community 
fleet  to  the  waters  of  a  range  of  countries.  The  level  of  utilisation  will  vary  from  one 
agreement  to  another  and  this  aspect  can  be  considered  from  two  different  perspectives, 
namely,  fishing  possibilities  and  catch  levels. 

The  fishing  possibilities  fixed  in  a  given  agreement  depend  on  many  factors,  notably  the 
fisheries  policies  of  our  partners,  the  state  of  the  resources  and  the  opportunities  sought  by 
Member  States for  their  vessels.  The appreciation  of the level  of  utilisation  of  these fishing 
possibilities, should take account  of the target  species of the fleets  concerned. There  are two 
different  situations in this regard. Firstly, fishing possibilities for tuna and swordfish  are fixed 
by  reference  to  the  number  of  fishing  vessels  authorised  to  fish.  In  view  of  the  highly 
migratory  nature of  these  species, vessel  owners  normally  request  licences  to be  able to fish 
throughout  the  migratory  range  of  the  species.  In  contrast,  demersal  fisheries  under  the 
agreements are based on a different  parameter, namely, the level of authorised gross registered 
tonnage  of  Community  vessels  in  our  partner's  waters  at  a given  time. 

It  will  be  appreciated  that  the  utilisation  of  fishing  possibilities  will  vary  over  the  life-time 
of the agreement  depending on numerous factors  such as the level of licence fees, catch rates, 
market prices for the species, climatic and sea conditions, etc. It should be noted that Member 
States and shipowners  incur no penalty  if they  do not fully  utilise the fishing possibilities on 
offer  during  the lifetime  of  an  agreement,  particularly  since shipowners  usually  pay  for  their 
licences  on  a quarterly  basis. 

The  second  consideration  relates  to  the  level  of  catches  by  Community  vessels  operating 
under  the  fisheries  agreements.  The  Commission  sought  for  many  years  to  enduce  Member 
States  to  communicate  the  catches  of  their  vessels  operating  in  the  waters  of  countries, 
particularly  ACP  countries,  with  which  the  Community  had  an  agreement.  In  1987,  the 
Commission  adopted  a Regulation  (3151/87) to that  effect.  This Regulation  was annulled by 
the  Court  of  Justice  in  1989. It  was  not  until  1993  that  a new  control  Regulation  (2847/93) 
obliged  Member  States to exercise control  over the fishing activities of  their  vessels, notably 
in  partner  countries.  This  means  that  data  on  these  activities  on  a  regular  basis  has  only 
become  available  in  recent years  and  the  Commission  considers  that  further  improvement  is 
needed  in  relation  to  the  accuracy  and  regularity  of  catch  reporting  by  Community  vessels 
operating  under  such  agreements. 

The situation  in relation to the tuna catches by our fleet  is different  since they  have a separate 
catch  reporting  system  due to the fact  that their fisheries are carried  out  both  in  international 
waters  and  in  the  waters  of  partner  countries  as  they  follow  the  migratory  range  of  the 
species.  Each  tuna  fishing  vessel  completes  a daily  catch  form  which  is then  transmitted  to 
the national scientific  institute of the Member State of the vessel concerned.  The Commission 
receives  an  annual  statement  of  catches  for  each  vessel.  It  is on  the  basis  of  this  statement 
that the  financial  payments  are  made to partner  countries  for  that  portion  of  the  catch  of  the 
vessel  taken  in  its  waters. 

2.5  Fishing  fleets 

Fishing  activities  in  third  country  waters  under  the  agreements  contribute  to  reducing  the 
fishing  pressure on  stocks  in Community  waters.  There  are  1 000 vessels  engaged  in  fisheries 
under  the  Morocco  and  ACP  agreements  and  a  further  300  vessels  are  present  on  average  in 
the  other  agreements  with  Norway,  Greenland,  etc.  The  presence  over  many  years  of  the 
Community  fleet  in  the  waters  of  partner  countries  under  the  first-generation  agreements,  has 
demonstrated  to  the  latter  the  development  potential  for  their  own  fishing  fleets  to  harvest 
their  resources;  thus  a  transfer  of  know-how  and  experience.  This  development  has 
sometimes  led  to  a  reduction  in  the  fishing  opportunities  available  to  the  Community  fleet  in 
certain  waters. 

The  second-generation  agreements  involving  the  creation  of  joint  enterprises  and  joint 
ventures  have  implications  on  the  Community's  structural  policy  for  its  fleet.  In  the  case  of 
joint  enterprises  fishing  vessels  are  transferred  definitively  from  the  Community  fleet  to  the 
fleets  of  the  partner  countries  concerned.  Under  such  arrangements,  our  partners  modernise 
their  fishing  fleets  and  there  is  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  Community 
fleet.  Where 
a joint  enterprise  is  created,  targeting  non-surplus  stocks,  the  Community  vessel  transferred 
replaces  an  existing  vessel  in  the  fisheries,  with  no  increase  in  fishing  effort. 

In  general  under  the  agreements  with  ACP  countries,  Community  vessels  are  being  accorded 
access  to  resources  which  are  surplus  to  the  harvesting  capacity  of  the  domestic  fleet  and 
otherwise  would  remain  either  unexploited  or  would  be  exploited  by  competing  high  seas 
fleets,  notably  Asiatic 

Of  course,  the  fleets  of  many  of  the  world's  developed  fishing  nations  are  characterised  by 
the  phenomenon  of  over-capacity  i.e.  too  many  vessels  compared  to  available  fisheries 
resources.  Efforts  are  being  made to  reduce  the  size of  these  fleets  and  no  doubt  this  process, 
not  only  in  the  Community  but  on  a  worldwide  basis,  will  continue.  This  excess  fishing 
capacity  threatens  the  long  term  sustainable  exploitation  of  the  stocks  and  creates  major 
problems  for  the  economic  viability  of  the  fleets.  The  future  development  of  the  fisheries 
sector  is  dependent  on  a  reduction  in  fleet  sizes  to  a  level  where  the  level  of  fishing  effort 
corresponds,  at  the  most,  to  the  maximum  sustainable  yield  of  the  fisheries  resources  This 
trend  allied  to the  expansion  in  the  fleets  of  certain  developing  countries,  has  implications  for 
the  Community's  fisheries  policy  and  for  the  fisheries  agreements 

10 

SECTION  HI 

Perspectives 

A  new  international  legal  framework  is  emerging  in  world  fisheries  consisting  of  the  U.N. 
Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea,  the  U.N.  Agreement  on  straddling  fish  stocks  and  highly 
migratory  fish  stocks  and  the  non-iegally  binding  FAO  Code  of  Conduct  for  responsible 
fisheries.  Since  the  Community  has  been  a  major  participant  during  the  process  of  the 
elaboration  of  the  above-mentioned  instruments,  it  therefore  needs,  as  a  responsible  fishing 
entity,  to  be  active  and  constructive  at  the  implementation  stage  as  well. 

The Community's  fisheries  agreements cannot  remain  indifferent  to these  developments.  This 
instrument,  which  has  been  a  key  part  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  must  be  capable  of 
adjustment  to the  new  international  realities  and  legal  order.  The  fishing  sector  will  continue 
to  be  under  close  public  scrutiny  and  the  fisheries  agreements  will  not  escape  from  this 
process.  These  agreements  must  be,  and  be  seen  to  be,  responsible  in  terms  of  fishing 
practices  and  balanced  in  the  interests  of  both  parties. 

However,  different  factors  will  influence  the  future  course  of  the  fisheries  agreements. 

Firstly,  the  level  of  available  budgetary  appropriations  will  constitute  a  key  element  in 
determining  how  the  policy  will  evolve.  The  current  budgetary  situation  is  that  the  costs  of 
existing  agreements  leave  little  margin  for  the negotiation  of  new  agreements  and  indeed  may 
compromise  the  re-negotiation  of  others 
international 
management  guidelines  and  strategies,  in  the  pursuit  of  the  goal  of  sustainable  exploitation 
of  fisheries  resources,  as  well  as  the  development  of  their  domestic  fishing  sectors  (fleet, 
processing  facilities  and  ports)  by  our  partners  may  lead  to  a reduction  in  fishing  possibilities 
available  for  the  Community  fleet. 

Secondly,  new 

in  the  future. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  policy  to  be  pursued  in  the  short  to  medium  term  in 
relation  to  fisheries  agreements needs to be differentiated  according  to the contrasting  fisheries 
situations  surrounding  the  current  agreements. 

In  the  first  instance,  those  agreements  involving  reciprocal  exchange  of  quotas,  and  in  certain 
situations joint  management  of  stocks,  are  a key  element  of  the  management  of  the  CFP.  In 
view of  this and  the  fact  that  the  exchange  of  quotas  are  balanced,  the  Commission  considers 
that  these  agreements  should  be  maintained. 

In  the  second  instance,  and  in  regard  to  the  possible  conclusion  of  agreements  with  new 
partner  countries,  the  Commission  is  of  the  view  that,  in  the  main,  such  agreements  will  be 
based  on  the  2nd  generation  model  involving  the  promotion  of  joint  enterprises  and  joint 
ventures  and  depending  on  the  mutual  interests  of  both  Parties, this  approach  could  also  apply 
to  the  eventual  renewal  of  existing  agreements.  The  agreement  with  Argentina  has 
demonstrated  the attractiveness of the 2nd  generation  model, in particular  for  partner  countries 
with  established  fishing  industries  as  in  Latin  America,  the  southern  part  of  Africa  and  New 

11 

Zealand.  This  emphasis  on  a  partnership  approach  between  the  Community  and  partner 
countries,  which  is  not  limited  purely  to  the  exploitation  or  extraction  phase,  constitutes  a 
recognition  that  a viable  long-term  mutually  beneficial  fisheries  relationship  may  be based  on 
a  closer  integration  of  the  respective  fisheries  sectors. 

Finally, there are those  agreements  involving  a  financial  cost to the Community,  notably  those 
with Morocco, Greenland  and the ACP  States.  The political, social  and  economic  significance 
and  impact  for  the  Community  of  these  agreements  in  terms  of  employment,  market  supply 
etc.  has  already  been  illustrated  in  Section  II. 

The budgetary  situation  applicable to  fisheries  agreements under the CFP nevertheless  imposes 
new  conditions  in  respect  of  the  conclusion  of  new  agreements,  as  also  in  respect  of  the 
renewal  of  existing  agreements.  The  financial  reality  is  that  certain  agreements  could  now 
be  allowed  to  lapse  in  the  interests  of  concentrating  the  Community's  financial  resources  on 
improving  those  agreements  considered  to  be  most  attractive  to  Community  shipowners 

The  level  of  utilisation  of  the  agreements,  in  terms  of  licences  obtained  by  shipowners  is  an 
interesting 
that  certain  agreements, 
systematically  under-used  to  a  very  large  extent,  are  of  limited  interest  for  Community 
fishermen. 

It  also  demonstrates 

this  regard. 

indicator 

in 

Hence,  in  the  short  or  medium  term,  the  Community  should  consider  several  options. 

(a) 

Speed  up  a  reduction  of  the  Community  fleet  operating  in  non-Community  waters 

Such  action  would  require  the  means  to  absorb  the  fleet  concerned,  which  could  not  be 
abandoned  to  its  fate.  It  would  therefore  call  for  additional  financial  resources  to  those 
already  planned  by  way  of  structural  adjustment  in  order  to  encourage  the  conversion 
or  scrapping  of  vessels  and  to  lessen  the  risk  of  vessels  returning  to  Community  waters 
at  a  time  when  the  present  overcapacity  in  such  waters  must  be  eliminated. 

Furthermore,  such  a  reduction  would  certainly  involve  greater  dependence  on  the  part 
of  the  Community  for  its  supply  of  fishery  products  -  currently  over  54%  -  and  would 
have  a  very  considerable  adverse  impact  on  employment,  particularly  in  the  already 
seriously  affected  coastal  regions  of  the  Community  dependent  on  fisheries 

(b)  Renounce  those  agreements  that  are  least  attractive  to  the  industry  as  a  whole 

Initially  certain  agreements  could  fall  within  this  category  and  eventual  savings  from 
these  agreements  could  be  switched  to other  agreements  from  which  a higher  economic 
and  social  return  may  be  derived  However,  this  analysis  may  not  ignore  certain  non-
quantifiable  factors,  and  notably  the  nature  of  the  relationship  between  the  Community 
and  the  third  countries  concerned  or  even  the  coherence  of  our  policy  regarding  the 
management  and  control  of  the  fishing  activities  of  distant-water  Community  fishing 
vessels. 

12 

(c)  Concentrate financial resources on the most attractive agreements. 

This option, which adopts the line set out immediately  above, would involve negotiating 
the financial component  of  those  agreements  awaiting  renewal  in  order  to  match  it 
squarely  with the true interests of the sector.  This would signify  thai the Community's 
financial  obligations  under  future  agreements  would  be  limited  to  the  financial 
compensation  component,  excluding  thereby  the financing of  al!  other  actions.  The 
intended  effect  would  therefore  be  also  to  redistribute  existing  budgetary  resources, 
concentrating  them  on  those  current  or  future  agreements  which  offer  the  maximum 
potential. 

d)  To modify  the current repartition of  costs of  the fisheries agreements. 

Currently,  the  Community  assumes  the  major  share  of  the  cost  of  the  Fisheries 
Agreements.  This  option  would  entail  the  vessel  owners  and/or  the  Member  States 
assuming  a greater  share  of  the  current  cost  of  the  agreements.  This  adjustment,  in 
addition to the financial implications,  could also have the effect  of  improving  the rate 
of  utilisation  of  certain fisheries  agreements. 

13 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 488  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  11 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-496-EN-C 

I8Br,  :-2-73"09794-: 

;e. 

.-vw::