Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector'
Date: 1999-05-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Structural Funds, common fisheries policy, structural policy

C 209/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Commission proposal for a Council
Regulation (EC) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural
assistance in the fisheries sector’ (1)

(1999/C 209/04)

On 19 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles
43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Mun˜ iz Guardado.

At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 115 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and five abstentions.

The Committee approves the Commission proposal subject to
the comments which follow.

1.

Introduction

Structural measures in the fisheries sector contribute
1.1.
to the sector’s restructuring by creating conditions favourable
to its development and modernisation. They therefore form an
integral part of the common fisheries policy.

The establishment of the Financial

Instrument for
1.2.
Fisheries Guidance (FIFG)
in 1993 and the bringing of
structural measures in the fisheries sector under the umbrella
of the Structural Funds confirmed their dual affiliation.

The proposal is designed to adjust programming to the

1.3.
new situation of the Structural Funds.

2. General comments

2.1.
The proposed regulation is extremely far-reaching.
Article 4 of Title I (Programming and implementation) states
that the Member States are to present to the Commission a
plan covering a seven-year period beginning on 1 January
2000.

2.2.
The significance of the topics addressed by the regu-
lation highlights its importance not only as regards the
outcome of the consultations held prior to its drafting, but
also as to how it will be applied with a view to boosting
economic and social cohesion and respecting the subsidiarity
principle.

2.3.
The new regulation should provide continuity with the
current regulations and should prove simpler to implement, as
the FIFG is to be used for all structural assistance.

2.4.
Title II (Implementation of multiannual guidance pro-
grammes for fishing fleets) substantially changes the provisions
of the fourth multiannual guidance programme (MGP-IV) for
renewing the fleet. It establishes stricter requirements than
those laid down in the existing regulation which runs until
2002. However, the new provisions do not fully meet the need
for a fleet renewal mechanism that addresses important issues
such as safety, seaworthiness, accommodation conditions and
obsolescence.

An analysis of fleet renewal trends in recent years
2.4.1.
shows that a vessel now needs more GT (2)
than those
withdrawn in order to fish as competitively, have the space
needed to meet international standards, and improve con-
ditions for handling the fish on board.

2.4.2. When an old fishing vessel (with an old GT)
is
replaced by a newly built one (with a new GT), the fairest
solution would be to apply an accommodation co-efficient to
the old GT to arrive at the new GT.

2.4.3.
Acceptance of the requirement that the withdrawn
capacity be 30 % greater would oblige us to build smaller
vessels. This would pose a risk to safety, as fishermen would
then have to fish the same waters in less powerful vessels or
purchase and lay up a further vessel in order to build a vessel
exactly the same as that withdrawn; this would increase the
investment cost and would not improve accommodation
conditions or safety on board.

2.4.4.
If self-financing is not possible, it becomes more
difficult to sell vessels (both in EU Member States and to third
countries) and there will be less scope for renewing the fleet.

Vessel renewal should be undertaken according to
2.4.5.
fleet segment, as part of the MGP, as otherwise the small-scale
fishing fleet would be seriously disadvantaged.

(1) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999, p. 12.

(2) Category of vessel by tonnage (GT).

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/11

2.5.
Title II also includes provisions for joint enterprises.
The establishment of such enterprises has always been prefer-
able to scrapping, as they help to supply the Community
market and maintain some Community jobs, but the proposal
lays down constraints and requirements that may make them
unviable.

The common provisions on fishing fleets, small-scale
2.6.
coastal fishing, and socio-economic measures also deserve
specific mention. In some instances it would be better to
continue the present system, while in others the provisions
need to be expanded and clarified.

Title III

2.7.
(Protection of marine resources in coastal
waters, aquaculture, fishing port facilities and processing and
marketing) and Title IV (Other measures) are extremely
important, even though some articles refer to markets policy -
a subject which has not been included in the proposed
regulation.

2.8.
Title V (General and financial provisions) could herald
a return to the type of situation that existed in 1992, when in
fact the best answer would be a guarantee of medium and
long-term financing.

3. Specific comments

The section makes the following specific comments:

the level corresponding to the objectives of MAGP III, for the
period to 31 December 2001, except in the framework of
programmes for improving safety of navigation at sea.’

3.1.2. A r t i c l e 8

The following parts of this article should be amended:

Article 8(2)(b), as it should be the task of the
3.1.2.1.
Commission to draw up the list of third countries to which
vessels can be transferred,
in the interests of uniformity.
Alternatively,
the Commission should lay down criteria
enabling the Member States to identify countries to which
vessels may not be exported.

3.1.2.2.
Article 8(3)(a), which only applies to the permanent
withdrawal of vessels over 15 years old. It would be better to
retain the provisions of Regulation 3699/93 (period of 10 to
15 years), and to stipulate the precise conditions under which
aid will not be paid for the export of such vessels.

It should be the task of the Commission to
3.1.2.2.1.
provide, for all Member States, a list of third countries where
the definitive transfer of vessels would not qualify for public
aid, or a list of third countries where this exclusion would not
apply.

3.1.2.2.2.
It is not clear why the proposal eliminates the
‘10-15 year old’ category and creates a specific category in
Article 8(3)(a) of ‘scrapping premiums: i) 15 year old vessels’.

3.1. Title II (Implementation of multiannual guidance programmes

for fishing fleets)

3.1.3. A r t i c l e 9

3.1.1. A r t i c l e s 7 a n d 1 0

It is important that Regulation 3699/93 should remain in
force, but that certain conditions be laid down:

3.1.1.1.
These articles are closely interrelated, and will
entail a much stricter programme than the provisions of
MGP-IV. It is not clear what technical and legal basis was used
to underpin the requirement that, for each individual project,
the capacity withdrawn in association with the addition of
new capacity must be at least 30 % greater than the new
capacity added, in terms of both tonnage and power, except
for vessels less than 12 metres long.

3.1.1.2.
The section proposes that these articles be amended
to make it clear that the granting of aid for the fleet must be
tied to compliance with the MGPs and that safety, accommo-
dation and working conditions must be improved.

The provisions of subparagraph 1(b) should be
3.1.1.3.
amended, as they alter the conditions laid down in Article 3 of
the Council Decision of 26 June 1997. This article states that:
‘A Member State may exempt fishing vessels of its fleet of less
than 12 metres overall, other than trawlers, from the provi-
sions of Article 2. In this case, the aggregate capacity of this
fleet segment, expressed in GT tonnage and in kW power, shall
not increase beyond the level at 1 January 1997, or beyond

3.1.3.1. When the Council has authorised the Commission
to negotiate a fisheries agreement with a third country, the
Member State should not grant aid for joint enterprises with
that country during the 12 months following the granting of
the authorisation unless they have the explicit consent of the
Commission.

3.1.3.2. When a fisheries agreement with a third country
provides for the establishment of joint enterprises, the Com-
mission should grant an additional premium corresponding to
the scales for fleet assistance laid down in Tables 1 and 2 of
Annex IV. The Commission would be responsible for the
administration and payment of this.

3.1.3.3.
The proposal as currently worded makes manage-
ment much more complicated, and the time-frame is too short.
If aid is to be divided into two headings, a new category of
joint enterprise with temporary exports for a maximum of
four years should be created, to offset the disappearance of
temporary joint ventures.

C 209/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

3.1.3.3.1.
Joint enterprises are preferable to scrapping, as
they prolong a productive asset, supply the Community
market, and maintain jobs.

3.1.5.1.
For aid to small-scale coastal fishing to be effective,
the term ‘integrated collective project’ must be clearly defined
and the regulation should specify that such projects may also
be carried out by fishermen’s organisations.

The establishment of

3.1.3.3.2.
joint enterprises would
make up for the disappearance of temporary joint ventures,
which are not covered by the proposed regulation.

3.1.6. A r t i c l e 1 3

3.1.4. A r t i c l e 1 1

Under Article 11(2), the Commission may take appropriate
measures if Member States fail to comply with the obligations
listed in Article 11(1). Such measures may include adjustment
of the capacity objectives in the MGP and suspension of the
introduction of licence applications to third countries under
fisheries agreements.

Under Article 13(4)(c),
the compensation referred to in
paragraph 3(b) must be refunded if the beneficiary returns to
work as a fisherman within less than one year. This period
should be made shorter, in order to prevent the refunding of
compensation.

Amendment is necessary in order to avoid discrimi-
3.1.6.1.
nation vis-à-vis vessel owners, who are not subject to a similar
obligation when a vessel is withdrawn permanently.

A detailed list of all

3.1.4.1.
is
needed, so that people know where they stand. If such a list
cannot be drawn up, Article 11(2) should be deleted, as it
flouts the following principles:

‘appropriate measures’

3.1.4.1.1.
Responsibility. It penalises private legal or natural
persons by denying them the possibility of obtaining public
aid to renew or modernise their vessels and preventing them
from obtaining licences under fisheries agreements with third
countries, solely because of failings on the part of the Member
States. It penalises vessel owners for their Member State’s
failure to comply with the information and monitoring
requirements of the regulation.

3.1.4.1.2.
Proportionality. The general principles of the
Community legislative system require that the EU institutions,
in exercising their powers, do not impose burdens on econ-
omic operators that exceed what is necessary to achieve the
aims being pursued.

3.1.4.1.3.
Clarity and legal certainty. The generic reference
to the adoption of appropriate measures contravenes the
principle that, in the case of sanctions, a clear indication of the
measures that may be taken must be provided, and that this
cannot be left to the discretion of the body imposing the
sanctions. The case law of the Court of Justice requires that
Community legislation is clear and predictable for interested
parties and that it explains precisely what obligations are
imposed on them.

3.1.5. A r t i c l e 1 2

3.2. Title III (Protection of marine resources in coastal waters,
aquaculture, fishing port facilities and processing and market-
ing). This should include a reference to the development of
fishery resources.

3.2.1. A r t i c l e 1 4

This article should provide the possibility of further measures
to improve facilities in coastal areas. The obligation in
Annex III for the management authority to submit scientific
monitoring reports to the Commission every year should also
be changed so that such information only has to be provided
at the half-way stage and at the end of the five years.

3.2.1.1.
The proposed amendment extends the scope of the
provisions and establishes a more flexible criterion for scientific
monitoring of fishery resources in coastal areas.

3.3. Title IV (Other measures)

3.3.1. A r t i c l e 1 5

Under Article 15(2)(b), priority will be given to measures
implemented by organisations that are officially recognised
within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) 3759/92. It should be
added that priority will also be given to organisations which
carry out particularly significant measures in the marketing
field. Such measures should be addressed in Annex III, 3.

Greater clarification is needed of what
is meant by an
‘integrated collective project to improve the structure of their
fishing activity’. It should be specified that such projects can
also be handled and promoted by fishermen’s organisations.

Support should also be extended to organisations that are
particularly active in finding and promoting new market
outlets for fisheries and aquaculture products.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/13

3.3.2. A r t i c l e 1 6

This article has more to do with market policy, and should
therefore be included in the common market organisation
scheme. At all events,
it should specify that organisations
which share the same main aims as producer organisations are
also eligible for the aid mentioned in Article 16(1) and 16(2).

3.3.2.1.
There are some countries where little use has been
made of the producer organisation system, but where other
fishery organisations serve a very similar purpose; these latter
organisations should not be denied aid.

period is not the same as that laid down for temporary
cessation of activities.

In Article 17(3), the threshold of one million euro
3.3.3.3.
should be increased, and the percentage of Community
financial assistance allocated to the sector in the Member State
concerned should be raised to 5 %.

Experience in the fisheries sector shows that it is
3.3.3.3.1.
vitally important that the periods for temporary cessation of
activity be extended (for unforeseen circumstances, non-
renewal of fisheries agreements, etc.), and that the aid granted
in such cases be increased too.

3.3.3. A r t i c l e 1 7

3.3.4. A r t i c l e 1 8

Article 17(1)(a) stipulates that compensation for unforeseeable
circumstances may be provided for a maximum period of two
months per year. This may not be long enough, and should
be extended to six months. The provisions should cover
circumstances caused by both biological and ecological factors.

3.3.3.1.
As currently worded, Article 17(1)(b) could dis-
courage the renewal of existing fisheries agreements. The
compensation period should be set at one year and a further
extension could be granted at the end of that period on the
basis of an analysis (scientific, socio-economic, etc.) of the
situation.

3.3.3.2.
The provisions in Article 17(1)(c) relating to the
processing industry need further clarification. They should
specify that when the processing industry depends for its
supply on a resource covered by a recovery plan, it may receive
the relevant compensation (for a maximum of two years, with
a possible extension for one further year) on condition that
the product is for human consumption and the raw material
is not available. Clarification is also needed as to why this

Brussels, 26 May 1999.

Under Article 18(2), aid should also be available for exploratory
surveys to find new fishing grounds.

fishing

projects

Exploratory

3.3.4.1.
extremely
important, and it is logical that they should qualify for aid
provided their aim is the conservation of fishery resources and
they involve more selective techniques. However, this is no
reason for not also providing aid for exploratory surveys to
find new fishing grounds which can further the same aim.

are

3.3.5. A n n e x I V

The scales and rates of assistance listed in tables 1 and 2
represent a 19 % increase which also takes account of inflation.
However, this increase is reduced by the percentage figures in
table 3. These percentages should be the same as those given
in Council Regulation (EC) 2468/98 of 3 November 1998 (1)
laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Com-
munity structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture
sector and the processing and marketing of its products.

(1) OJ L 312, 20.11.1998, p. 19 to 35.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI