Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products'
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aquaculture, common organisation of markets, fishery product, fishing industry, fishing regulations

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/13

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products’

(1999/C 329/05)

On 23 March 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 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 13 July 1999. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to six, with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The present proposal for a regulation on the common
organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products
comes in the wake of the communication which the Com-
mission submitted to the Council and the European Parliament
on 16 December 1997, on the future for the market in fisheries
products in the European Union: responsibility, partnership
and competitiveness.

1.2.
The proposal revises and adapts various aspects of
the common market organisation and consolidates hitherto
separate pieces of legislation.

As regards the developments which have prompted
1.3.
these changes,
the proposal gives producer organisations
greater responsibility for managing resources and catches and
for adjusting these to market needs. It also contains provisions
designed to improve consumer information in the retail chain,
and establishes mechanisms for improving the supply of
products to the processing industry.

2. General comments

The Committee approves the proposed regulation,

2.1.
subject to acceptance of the comments which follow:

2.2.
The Committee has always welcomed steps to improve
the common market regime in the sector, in particular those
designed to simplify market management and increase the role
and representativeness of producer organisations,
thereby
helping them to become more dynamic.

2.3.
The common fisheries policy (CFP) has been adapted a
number of times, inter alia in order to accommodate successive
enlargements of the EU, the various fisheries traditions and
practices of its Member States, and the situation regarding
resources.

2.4. With a view to improving the operation of the markets
and giving producer organisations a more effective role on
them, it might be useful to collect more detailed and up-to-date

information on Member State producer organisations and
producers (and on their situation and status). This would help
to ascertain whether the current Community system of
producer organisations is in tune with the production situation.
The Committee calls on the Commission to conduct such an
analysis with the involvement of the sector.

2.5.
In the Committee’s view, the common market organis-
ation should become an effective instrument of the CFP; any
changes should be consistent with the other strands of the
CFP, so that the sector develops as a whole.

The Committee welcomes the fact that material which
2.6.
is currently to be found in several different legislative texts is
being brought into one single document. This is helpful for
those working in the sector.

The Committee stresses that

2.7.
is well
founded and consistent, and that it takes account of its own
comments and those of the sector.

the proposal

2.8.
Although the common market organisation cannot
solve all the sector’s problems on its own, it must consistently
further the objectives of the CFP.

2.9.
At a time when fishery resources are scarce, measures
which encourage producer organisations to draw up oper-
ational programmes that adjust catches to market needs,
thereby avoiding wastage of a common but scarce resource,
are generally to be welcomed — especially if the requisite
financial support is forthcoming.

The fisheries sector has to contend with dwindling
2.10.
catches and competition from third country producers. In
such a situation, price support is particularly important and to
a large extent guarantees the economic viability of many
producers.

2.11. Making the sector viable is important for the economy
of certain regions and for their inhabitants, and would also
safeguard the survival and competitiveness of a product which
is being recommended more and more as part of a proper diet
because of its nutritional value.

C 329/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.11.1999

2.12.
The basic provisions for improving labelling and
consumer information on the differences between fresh, chilled
and frozen products have also been dictated by the market and
will help make the activities of operators more transparent.
Producer organisations should comply fully with this and
exploit the Community instruments and financial support
available to them to the full.

exception rather than the rule. At all events, as the Commission
itself says, it must not jeopardise freedom of trade.

2.19.
members concerned is to be granted by the Member States.

Under the proposal, compensation for the non-

2.13.
Common marketing standards are to be established
using a special procedure. This must take account of and
respect the wide diversity of consumption patterns and habits
(e.g. for fresh fish) within the EU. As has been done for
other products, the common marketing standards should be
extended to cover all salted, fresh or dried products.

2.19.1.
funded from the EAGGF.

The Committee thinks that this measure should be

It is generally agreed that a further way to upgrade
2.20.
Community fishery products and protect Community pro-
duction from increasing third-country competition is for the
sector to adopt a quality policy that is clearly in tune with
consumer preferences.

2.14.
In this connection too, the Committee emphasises
the importance of minimum sizes, not only in terms of
conservation policy but also in relation to international trade.

2.21.
As already noted, a true policy for improving quality
begins on board ship and must be continued right through to
the final consumer.

Competition from third-country produce sometimes
2.15.
flouts the relevant legislation, penalising Community pro-
duction and seriously disrupting the sector.

2.16.
The implementation of monitoring provisions in this
area has largely been left to the Member States, and has not
always been satisfactory. Despite the current trend towards
greater efficacity, the Committee stresses the need for stricter
monitoring, throughout the EU, of the rules governing imports
and landings from third countries or vessels flying flags of
convenience, especially as regards quality, minimum size and
health standards.

2.16.1.
The Committee reiterates its request to the Com-
mission to endeavour to extend Community measures on the
management and protection of fishery resources, both in
international bodies and in bilateral agreements with third
countries. The aim should be to harmonise procedures and
rules so as to both protect resources and reduce distortions of
competition.

2.17.
In order to avoid the disruptions and serious market
crises which are sometimes triggered by unfair competition
from third country producers,
the Committee urges the
Commission to establish a specific support mechanism to
provide financial compensation for producer organisations.

The measures for boosting the role of producer
2.18.
organisations will,
in some circumstances, oblige non-
members to comply with the rules established and adopted by
the main organisation in their region. The Committee points
out that this is a rather sensitive matter, and should be the

2.22.
The proposed regulation laying down rules for Com-
munity structural assistance for renewal of the fleet stipulates
that the capacity withdrawn must be at least 30 % greater than
the new capacity added. The Committee doubts whether these
conditions will enable operators to renew the fleet. Here it
would reiterate the comments made in the relevant ESC
opinion (1).

2.23.
A cast-iron guarantee is needed of the safety of food
products for human consumption. The Committee thinks that
the Commission should draw the full consequences from the
analysis of the implications of the use of certain products or
ingredients in feed for animals which are destined for human
consumption. Similar concern must be exercised in the case of
aquaculture products.

2.24.
The processing industry must be guaranteed quality
and quantity of supply. To this end, conditions must be
established to ensure a smooth supply — preferably from
Community producers — to industry, although Community
production is unable to provide all the raw materials needed
by processors.

2.25.
Hitherto, the supply of third-country produce to the
Community processing industry has been subject to quotas,
depending on the needs of the industry. The Commission now
proposes to facilitate supplies to the industry by suspending
CCT duties for some selected products listed in Annex V.

2.26.
The Committee lacks information which would
enable it to ascertain whether the existing quota system has
proved unsuitable, and whether it is this that has prompted
the proposal
to remove quota restrictions on Annex V
products.

(1) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 10.

17.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 329/15

2.26.1.
the socio-
The Committee is concerned about
economic consequences of this measure, as it may make
Community production even greater prey to third-country
competition, adding the new customs concessions to the
already low cost of production factors and raw materials.

2.26.2.
As regards the supply of raw materials to the
processing industry, the Committee would prefer that the
case-by-case analyses and the current quota system be main-

tained for all products. The Committee recommends immedi-
ate action to reduce the amount of time and red tape needed
to authorise the suspension of customs duties, with a view to
smoothing supplies to the Community processing industry.

2.27.
As regards funding, the Committee would stress that
the reform is ambitious and far-reaching, and must be backed
by an equally extensive financial allocation if it is to have any
real impact on the sector.

Brussels, 22 September 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the
marketing of forest reproductive material’ (1)

(1999/C 329/06)

On 8 September 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
37 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 13 July 1999. The rapporteur
was Mr Kallio.

At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 108 votes in favour and one abstention.

1. Background

1.1.
The marketing of forest reproductive material within
the EU is currently governed by two directives: Directive
66/404/EEC (the origin directive), which is concerned with the
origin of material for marketing and the information required
about such material, and Directive 71/161/EEC (the quality
directive) on the quality of seeds and planting stock. These
directives were issued in 1966 and 1971 respectively and since
then have undergone very little modification. The Commission
recognized the need for the directives to be revised during
accession negotiations with Finland and Sweden, and these
countries were granted a transitional period until the end of
1999 to implement them.

2. Assessment of the proposal

2.1.
The present draft directive is the result of considerable
effort by the working group and lengthy preparation within

(1) OJ C 199 of 14.7.1999, p. 1.

the Standing Committee on seeds and propagating material
for agriculture, horticulture and forestry.
It combines the
above-mentioned directives into a single text and makes
numerous modifications to both of them.

2.2.
The proposal takes account of Finland and Sweden’s
special needs by adding a new category of reproductive
material, known as source-identified (‘stand seed’), which
could not be used under the current directives. The use of
material belonging to this category is indispensable, especially
in northern parts of Finland and Sweden. Those countries
which do not wish to use such material (e.g. Germany) can
prohibit it in their national legislation. Member States are
also allowed to impose more stringent requirements than
those laid down in the proposal
in other respects within
their own territory, which ensures that there will be no need
to compromise on the level of regulation previously adhered
to once the revised directive comes into effect. In this sense
the proposal successfully takes account of the differing needs
of Member States.