Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council regulation (EC) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector'
Date: 1999-06-03
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: aid to industry, aid to undertakings, fishing fleet, fishing industry, inshore fishing, structural policy

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/65

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council regulation (EC) laying
down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the
fisheries sector’

(1999/C 293/13)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
laying down the detailed rules and
arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector [COM(1998) 728 final —
98/0347 (CNS) (1)];

having regard to the Commission decision of 16 december 1998, in accordance with the first paragraph
of Article 198c of the treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the
subject;

having regard to the Bureau Decision of 10 March 1999 to instruct Commission 2: Agriculture, Rural
Development and Fisheries to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on structural measures in the
fisheries sector (CdR 309/98 fin) (2);

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 101/99 rev.) adopted by Commission 2 on 12 April 1999
(rapporteurs: Sir Simon Day and Mr Nordwall),

at its 29th plenary session of 2 and 3 June 1999 (meeting of 3 June) adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In July 1997, the Commission adopted Agenda 2000,
a blueprint for the future proposals and budgeting implications
for the expansion of the EU, the reform of the CAP and a
review of regional policy.

1.2.
On 18 March 1998, the Commission adopted its
proposals for regulations, inter alia, to govern the Structural
Funds in the period 2000-2006. These are the subject of
negotiation with Member States and are the subject of
consultation with the Committee of the Regions.

1.3. Within the proposals on structural measures in the
fisheries sector, the Commission indicated that further details
of the structural measures would be published at a later date.
Although expected in September, these were in fact published
on 14 December 1998, four days after Commission 2 had
approved the draft Opinion and which, with minor amend-
ments, was adopted by the Committee of the Regions on
14 January 1999.

It was not possible, therefore, to incorporate in that
1.4.
earlier Opinion any comments on the detailed regulations
whilst, at the same time, the detailed regulations have been
published without reference to that same Opinion.

1.5.
The recommendations made by the Committee of the
Regions are therefore still valid and should be taken into

(1) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999, p. 12.
(2) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 16.

account in revising the proposed regulation, the subject of this
current Opinion, on the detailed rules and arrangements. These
recommendations were as follows:

a) Access to funding must be made as simple as possible.

b)

Instead of the complexity of funds proposed, there should
be a single fund for nationally administered schemes and a
separate fund for regionally administered schemes.

c) With regard to the restructuring of the fleet, which is
closely linked to the fisheries sector, the COR does not
share the view that it is impossible to regionalise such
restructuring measures;
should be
regionalised and financed by FIFG.

these measures

d)

In terms of fleet restructuring, in addition to compensation
payments for decommissioning, where reduction of fishing
effort is pursued, compensation payments should be made
for temporary laying up of boats.

e) The requirement in MAGP III to require a minimum of
55 % of the target reductions to be achieved through
decommissioning and a maximum of 45 % through a
reduction in fishing effort be restored.

f) There should be no geographical limitations to support for
the fishing industry. If a fishing port, of whatever size, is
outside the new Objective 1 and 2 areas, it should be
eligible for assistance — all the more so if it is small and in
a state of crisis.

C 293/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.1999

g) There should be a wide interpretation of diversification to
meet
the Common
Fisheries Policy and matched funding should be drawn
from either public or private sector sources to achieve this.

the four stated primary goals of

2.2.
The intention of the new regulations is to improve the
interpretation of existing provisions, where these have been
found wanting, to extend assistance into new areas and to
bring the rates of assistance up to date.

h) That the fishing industry, along with agriculture, is recog-
nised as a major primary industry within the EU and that
the level of funding made available is commensurate with
its importance, bearing in mind that in certain coastal
areas of Europe fishing is the only source of wealth and
local productive strength is based upon it.

i)

In future, the criteria for providing aid to the fisheries
sector should pay still greater attention to sustainable
development considerations. However,
this should be
achieved in a way which is practicable from an aid-policy
standpoint and does not complicate administrative costs.

In the light of the decision at the Berlin summit, it is
1.6.
agreed that instead of the complexity of funds proposed, there
should be a single fund for the administered schemes.

Given the logic of national reduction targets (MAGP)
1.7.
and national funding through FIFG,
it is now agreed that
structural actions in the fisheries sector must be based on the
continuation of existing measures, in close connection with
the MAGPs.

2.3.

The main measures proposed are as follows:

a)

regarding fishing fleets

•

•

•

•

additions to the fishing fleet with the use of public aid will
only be permitted if offset by an equivalent withdrawal
without aid;

in the small scale coastal fishing sector, additions to the
fleet must not lead to an increase in fishing effort;

a tightening up of measures to deal with member States
which contravene provisions of the MAGP or the Com-
munity fishing vessel register;

a redefinition of what can qualify as a joint enterprise, in
particular to meet the criticisms of abuse by the Court of
Auditors;

b)

regarding small-scale coastal fishing

• more attention is to be paid to their specific problems;

•

the modernisation of this sector, but with no increase in
fishing effort, is given a high priority on account of its
particular features and its contribution to employment;

1.8.
It is also now agreed that in terms of the adjustment of
in addition to permanent withdrawal
fishing capacity,
measures, the COR supports the Commission’s new idea of
increasing aid for temporary laying up of vessels as a way of
reducing fishing effort.

c)

regarding accompanying measures

•

the extension of a range of socio-economic measures by
grant-aiding fishermen who switch to other occupations;

1.9. Moreover, since the Opinion adopted in January 1999,
it has become clear that MAGP IV is much more flexible than
MAGP III as regards Member States’ scope for reducing fishing
effort. This flexibility has been won with great difficulty and
must be retained. At all events there is no reason why strict
percentages should be laid down for countries which are
fulfilling their MAGP.

2. The Proposed Regulation

2.1.
Regrettably, and for reasons of timing, no account has
been taken of the views expressed in the previous Opinion.
Nor had there been any attempt to simplify the complexity of
funds. Accordingly this Opinion is not intended to replicate
the views previously expressed, although may refer to them.
Its prime purpose, instead, is to assess whether the rules and
arrangements now proposed are sufficient to assist the fisheries
sector and the economic and social well-being of fishing
dependent communities.

•

redefinition of temporary laying-up;

d)

regarding other forms of assistance

• measures to encourage investment in processing, aquacul-
ture and port facilities will continue, but with special
attention to the environmental aspects of aquaculture and
giving priority to collective measures;

• new regulations regarding producer organisations;

•

‘operations by members of the trade’ will be more exten-
sively encouraged.

2.4.
These measures are broadly welcomed. However, in
certain areas, we recommend that there are certain changes
made to reflect the views previously expressed by the Com-
mittee of the Regions and to ensure that assistance to the
fishing industry is non-discriminatory and is not limited on
geographical grounds.

Subsequent references to Articles and Annexes are to
2.5.
be construed as those contained in the Proposal for a new
Council Regulation, the subject of this Opinion.

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/67

2.6.
In line with point 1.6 above, which provides for
assistance from a single fund, all references to the EAGGF
should be removed from the proposal, and Article 4 should be
deleted.

The new draft regulation deals exclusively with coastal
2.7.
fishing. Fresh-water fishing is not covered although it was
previously eligible for aid. If the fresh-water fishing potential
is to be tapped, catching and storage equipment must be
continuously modernized, providing inter alia for improve-
ment of environmental standards; in keeping with the previous
structural plan, fresh-water fishing should therefore continue
to qualify for aid. It should be borne in mind here that
assistance for professional
fishermen also contributes to
maintaining regional culture and traditions.

2.8.
Article 5 requires Member States to provide certain
information to facilitate the drawing up of MAGPs for
2002-2006. The information required is set out in Annex II.
Where Member States have failed to meet the multiannual
guidance programme targets for each fleet segment,
the
Commission will withdraw financing for fleet renewal and
vessel modernisation until such targets are met, save that
financing for vessel modernisation should be allowed regard-
less, especially where it entails essential safety work.

2.9.
Article 7 refers to fleet renewal and modernisation of
fishing vessels. We are rather surprised to see that the Member
State’s obligation is to monitor rather than administer fleet
renewal, but more importantly the arrangements submitted to
the European Commission by Member States setting out their
proposals should specifically relate to the requirements set out
in Article 5 as amended.

2.10.
Article 8 refers to the adjustment of fishing effort.
The age limits of vessels have been increased from the regime
currently applicable. As a consequence some fishermen will
no longer be eligible for compensation. This needs to be
rectified. Paragraph 4 within Article 8 is also potentially dam-
aging to fishermen. As written this provision could be abused
in that Member States could impose very high restrictions on
fishing effort without any monetary compensation to the
fishermen concerned.

2.11.
Article 10 refers to public aid for fleet renewal and
vessel modernisation. It would be best not to reduce the EU
contribution towards these structural measures to 15 % in
Objective 2 regions. An intermediate figure should be used for
these regions, between that for Objective 1 regions and that
for regions not covered by the Objectives, i.e. a maximum of
25 % or, where appropriate, 20 %.

However, there needs to be some distinction drawn here
between extensive modernisation of old boats and certain
other fishing operations. For example, specific provision
should be made for assistance towards fishing gear and fish
room modernisation which are currently funded under the
PESCA programme, regardless of the age of the vessel. As the
Commission has stated that it wishes to see continuity of
assistance, this anomaly must be rectified.

The COR cannot support the Commission’s proposed
2.13.
new treatment of joint enterprises and the elimination of
temporary joint ventures. Such enterprises have been — and
remain — an extremely useful instrument for reducing the
Community fleet while maintaining Community jobs and
guaranteeing supplies in areas in which the EU suffers serious
shortages. Moreover, in tying these enterprises to the existence
of a fisheries agreement the Commission is acting in an
inexplicably paradoxical manner: on the one hand, it insists
that if a fisheries agreement lapses, the solution is to establish
joint enterprises — as is clear from the example of the
agreement with Morocco — while on the other hand it
stipulates that a joint enterprise cannot be established unless a
fisheries agreement exists. The Commission should acknowl-
edge this oversight, and not deprive of all meaning an
instrument which is extremely useful in world fisheries policy.
At the same time, there is no opposition to the maintenance
of an effective monitoring system regarding the operation of
these enterprises, and in particular to meet the criticisms of
the Court of Auditors.

2.14.
Article 12 refers to small scale coastal fishing. The
sentiment of the provisions in this article is supported, but the
element of discretion afforded to Member States should be
reduced. If Member States are serious in their attempts to assist
the fishing industry, then a more mandatory regime is required.

2.15.
Article 13 refers to socio-economic measures. Similar
comments apply to this section as for Article 12. In addition,
the definition of fisherman needs a minor amendment to
reflect factual as well as political correctness.

2.16.
The early retirement scheme, whilst welcome, should
be available to all those wanting to leave fishing irrespective
of whether they are linked to Article 8 measures or not.
Paragraph 3(c) of this Article is also welcomed as this will
enable funding to be made to fishermen direct to undertake
retraining programmes and diversification projects. For the
avoidance of doubt, though, the latter should specifically
mention inclusion of non-fishing industry business start-ups.

Article 10 also refers to detailed provision contained
2.12.
in Annex III, where it is stipulated that no aid will be given for
vessel modernisation where the vessel is over 30 years old.

2.17.
Article 14 refers to the protection of marine resources
in coastal waters, aquaculture, fishing port facilities, processing
and marketing. The inclusion of assistance in these areas is
welcomed, but should be more strongly encouraged.

C 293/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.1999

2.18.
trade. Similar comments apply as to Article 12.

Article 16 refers to operations by members of the

5.

In Article 7, paragraph 1(a), delete ‘monitoring’ and insert
‘administering’ and at the end of the paragraph add ‘ in the
manner laid down in Article 5’;

2.19.
Article 17 refers to temporary cessation of activities
and other financial compensation. Again the element of
discretion should be removed.
If different rules apply in
differing Member States, this can lead to discrimination. Finally
there is no justification for paragraph 4 of
this Article.
Reduction of fishing effort, as part of a fisheries recovery plan,
may form an essential part of a fisheries management strategy.

6.

In Article 8, paragraph 1, delete ‘referred to’ and insert ‘in
the manner laid down’;

7.

In Article 8, paragraph 2, first sentence, delete ‘15’ and
insert ‘10’;

3. Conclusions and recommendations

3.1.
This is a complex and detailed area. The European
Commission identified a need for FIFG when it was established
as the fourth structural fund in 1993. By proposing to provide
structural funding to non-objective regions through EAGGF
rather than FIFG, it had made assistance to the fisheries sector
more complex.
It is vital that sufficient measures are in
place to provide assistance to the fisheries sector on a
non-geographic specific basis.

It is also vital that the Commission takes into account

3.2.
the recommendations made in the earlier Opinion (1).

8.

In Article 8, paragraph 3, delete the first sentence and
insert
‘Public aid for final cessation shall be paid to
beneficiaries in accordance with the following:’;

9.

In Article 8, paragraph 3(a), substitute ‘10’ for ‘15’, ‘24 ’for
‘29’ and ‘25’ for ‘30’;

10. In Article 8, paragraph 3(a) (iii), insert after ‘Tables’, ‘1’;

11. In Article 8, paragraph 4, delete ‘Such measures may not

give rise to any public aid’;

12. Article 9(1), (2) and (3) should be replaced by the text of
Article 9 of the current regulation (EC) 3699/93 and
provision made to meet the criticisms of the Court of
Auditors;

Subject to the above, the following amendments to the

3.3.
draft proposal:

1.

‘Fresh-water fishing’ should be inserted in the explanatory
memorandum to the draft Regulation;

13. Article 10(1)(a) of the Commission proposal should be
replaced by the following: ‘Public aid may be granted for
fleet renewal or modernisation if the final objectives of the
MAGP are fulfilled in each fleet segment, irrespective of
whether there is an individual increase in capacity’;

2.

In line with the new position of the Commission, the
European Parliament and the Council following the Berlin
summit, the Committee of the Regions considers that
structural measures in the fisheries sector should be
financed exclusively from the FIFG. Accordingly, all refer-
ences to the EAGGF-Guarantee section should be deleted
from the recitals and articles of the proposal, and Article 4
should be deleted in its entirety;

14. Replace Article 10, paragraph 1(b) with the following text:
‘If the overall objectives of the multiannual guidance
programme (MAGP) and the capacity objectives in each
segment have not been met, public aid for fleet renewal
and vessel modernisation may be granted only if in the
particular case the capacity withdrawn exceeds new fishing
capacity by more than 30 %.’;

3.

In the seventh recital, add ‘and temporary joint ventures’;

15. Article 11(2)(b) of the Commission proposal should be

deleted;

4.

In Article 6, add a new subparagraph 1a): ‘In those cases
where a Member State has not met the objectives of the
multiannual guidance programmes for each fleet segment,
the Commission shall withdraw funding for fleet reno-
vation and vessel modernisation until these objectives are
achieved, save that financing for vessel modernisation be
allowed regardless, especially where it entails essential
safety work’;

16. In Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3, delete all references to

‘may’ and insert ‘shall’;

17. In Article 13, paragraph 1 after ‘his’ insert ‘or her’;

18. In Article 13, paragraph 2, delete ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’;

(1) CdR 309/98 fin — OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 16.

of Article 8’;

19. In Article 13, paragraph 3(b), delete ‘within the meaning

13.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 293/69

20. In Article 13, paragraph 3(c), after ‘collective social plan’
insert ‘including start up businesses in non-fishing related
sectors’;

21. ‘Fresh-water fishing’ should be inserted in Title III before

‘aquaculture’;

22. ‘Fresh-water fishing’ should be re-inserted in Article 14(1);

23. In Article 17, paragraph 1, first sentence, delete ‘may’ and

insert ‘shall’;

24. In Article 17, paragraph 2, first sentence, delete ‘may’ and

insert ‘shall’;

25. In the annexes to the Commission proposal, the limits on
private beneficiaries financial participation in measures
eligible for assistance should be the same in Objective 1
regions and in all other regions;

26. In Annex III, paragraph 1.4(b) delete ‘Without prejudice to
Article 17(2), the replacement of fishing gear shall not be
considered eligible expenditure’, add ‘iv) the replacement
of fishing gear and modernisation of fish rooms’ and in
paragraph 1.4(c) delete ‘paragraph’ and insert ‘paragraphs’
and add at the end ‘and (iv)’;

27. In Table 3 of point 2 (participation rates) of Annex IV, in
the ‘other areas’ section of the Group 2 and Group 3
columns, the reference to ‘15 %’ should be replaced by
‘25 %’ in the case of Objective 2 regions.

Brussels, 3 June 1999.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Manfred DAMMEYER