Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Common Fisheries Policy"
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: authorised catch, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing regulations

C 139/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.5.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Common Fisheries Policy’

(2001/C 139/18)

On 13 July 2000 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
decided to draw up an additional opinion on the ‘Common Fisheries Policy’.

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 1 February 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 379th plenary session held on 28 February and 1 March 2001 (meeting of 1 March 2001), the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion, by 57 votes to five, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
It is worth reiterating that the success of the Common
factors:
Fisheries Policy (CFP) depends on a number of
the balance struck between resources and fishing effort;
considerable transparency in devising and implementing poli-
cies; a certain amount of flexibility in applying measures; more
effective monitoring and controls; effective involvement of
interested parties; and finding solutions to the social problems
associated with restructuring the sector and reducing capacity.

1.2.
It must be remembered that the main aim of the CFP
is to ensure the sustainability of the sector and boost the
incomes of those employed in it; this will only become possible
if measures are taken to secure the long-term future of fishing
activities.

2. A rational and sustained policy for resource conser-

vation and management

a)
Given the current general state of fishery resources, faced
with overfishing and the need to protect the most endangered
species, the idea of conserving fishery resources in EU Member
States’ waters is no longer merely an objective; it has become
an absolute priority. This priority should therefore be taken on
board by all parties — Community institutions, Member States
and the whole fisheries sector — as a starting point for
stabilising fishing activities and placing them on a permanent
footing and for ensuring the survival of an economic activity
which is vital to numerous regions in the Community.

b)
In referring to the poor state of fishery resources, the
Committee would also mention the sizeable sector whose
catch is not geared to human consumption: more than one
third of worldwide catches (30 million tonnes of fish) is used
for fishmeal. This sector is also responsible for the current
general depletion of stocks. Although the impact of this

activity within the EU varies and is relatively minor, as it is
concentrated in one area,
it nevertheless raises legitimate
questions about its impact on other species in the region
concerned. The Commission should give thought to this
matter, and seek advice on it from the scientific community.

2.1. The twelve-mile limit

2.1.1.
This is a core issue in the reform of the CFP and must
be clarified in order to outline the legal framework and
parameters which will mark out how the sector develops. As
the Committee has pointed out (1), the derogation from free
access to the (12-mile) coastal band was introduced in 1972
and has since been extended. It has been widely supported
both by the Member States and the sector itself.

2.1.2.
Application of the principle of equal access from
2002 would be highly disruptive, and would have unforesee-
able consequences not only politically but also from an
economic and social standpoint.

Given the disruption which the adoption of such a
2.1.3.
measure could inflict on the economic and social fabric of the
EU’s coastal regions, mainly in the regions most dependent
on fisheries, the Committee advocates maintaining access
restriction to the twelve-mile zone and making the current
derogation permanent, as a protection zone for the traditional
fishing activities of coastal populations.

2.2. The North Sea

Under the terms of the accession agreements, access restric-
tions are to be lifted on 31 December 2002. As access to most
stocks is regulated, fishing vessels from Spain, Finland, Portugal
and Sweden will then have access to the North Sea on an equal
footing with the other EU Member States.

(1) OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, pp. 39-41.

11.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 139/97

2.3. TACs and quotas

2.3.8.
Proper, rational resource management ought also to
provide for measures which anticipate the possibility of fishing
effort being redirected to fish species not subject to quotas, by
restricting overfishing of such species.

2.3.1.
Despite its limitations, there is no credible alternative
to the current system for managing fishing effort by setting
total allowable catches (TACs) which are then distributed
between Member States in the form of quotas.

2.4. Relative stability

2.3.2.
The Committee confirms its stance on maintaining
the TACs and quotas system, albeit with improvements, as a
way of rounding off the policy for matching fishery capacities
with the resources available. Compliance with the established
TACs and quotas should be ensured.

2.3.3.
In this context, the setting of TACs for several years
at a time could provide more stable management of fishing
effort, although — as is clear from the Commission’s TACs
and quota proposals for 2001 — a closer watch should be
kept on the state of resources so as to avert the need for sharp
cuts in TACs and their ensuing socio-economic consequences.

2.3.4.
An accurate picture of the levels and development of
stocks fished in Community waters is an essential part of any
policy commitment to manage fishery resources.

The opinions of the Scientific, Technical and Econ-
2.3.5.
omic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and the recommen-
dations of international bodies can certainly benefit from
adopting a highly rigorous scientific approach and taking into
account the analysis of biological, economic and social aspects,
since these constitute the basis for establishing the TACs.
Conversely, STECF opinions will always be limited in scope if
the Council introduces ‘improvements and adjustments’ or
other ‘considerations’ aimed at altering the parameters.

Under these circumstances, the level of TACs will
2.3.6.
reflect concerns which are more political than scientific in
nature.

2.4.1.
The principle which ensures rational distribution of
the available resources, aimed at securing a balanced exploi-
tation of resources and stability in the fishing activities of each
Member State, must be guaranteed.

The Committee reiterates the need to maintain this
2.4.2.
principle with any adaptations and adjustments which might
be warranted in overall terms by changes in the situation since
1983.

2.5. Structural measures

2.5.1.
The series of measures which make up structural
policy do not seem to have been very successful, judging by
the still manifest over-capacity.

2.5.2.
Efforts should continue, without losing sight of the
need to continue to renew and modernise the Community’s
fleet. There should be a firm commitment to achieving high-
quality conditions for processing the raw material, improving
the quality of life on board, and enhancing safety for crews.
The concept of capacity should be redefined so that instead of
only taking into account total fleet tonnage and engine power,
a distinction can be drawn between an active capacity which
generates fishing effort and a passive capacity which does not
have any impact on this (1). Such a step would do much to
improve safety and living conditions on board.

2.6. Multiannual guidance programmes (MAGPs)

2.6.1.
Alongside TACs and quotas, MAGPs are part of a
series of measures aimed at limiting the impact of overfishing
and the risks of depleting the stocks of certain species. Steps
to cut back fishing effort do not appear to have been very
successful under the current programme, as can be inferred
from the Commission’s interim report (2). The main reason
seems to be that actual capacity reduction under the current
(fourth) MAGP has proved insufficient in some Member States.

2.3.7.
The Committee disagrees with this way of proceed-
ing. It feels that the resources allocated to research to improve
knowledge in this area should be increased in line with
the important role which research plays in ensuring the
sustainability of Community fisheries.

(1) An increase in the tonnage of a vessel does not necessarily mean
an increase in its fishing capacity. Increases in tonnage which
merely improve work and safety conditions, without affecting
fishing capacity, should not be penalised.

(2) COM(2000) 272 final.

C 139/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.5.2001

The most suitable ways should be found and an unambiguous
reference framework devised for coherent measures which can
be applied by everyone, so that the MAGP can become a truly
effective management instrument. Provision must be made for
the institutionalisation of genuinely deterrent sanctions for
non-compliance.

2.8.3.
The Commission’s monitoring powers are still too
limited to make Community rules more effective and to
prevent discrimination in their application.

2.8.4.
It is difficult to implement the monitoring policy
without Community legislation to standardise sanctions and
application criteria. The Committee thinks that the Com-
mission should be given the means to remedy this situation.

2.6.2.
No-one disputes the fact that resources are heavily
fished and that this is likely to cause substantial losses for both
shipowners and fishermen. Thus, socio-economic support
measures are fully warranted in the event of fleet reductions or
adjustments.

2.9. Research and development

2.7. Technical measures

Despite regulatory difficulties in this field, there is
2.7.1.
still scope for progress if there is the political will and support
for research geared to improving the selectivity of fishing
tackle, for example.

2.9.1.
A resource management policy can only be effective
if it is backed up by in-depth knowledge of the levels of and
changes to the species fished in Community waters.

2.9.2.
The global research and development policy should
facilitate a rational, more efficient and more consistent har-
vesting of the sea’s resources.

2.9.3.
Resources allocated to research should therefore be
increased to match the importance of research for the CFP’s
future, viability and sustainability.

2.7.2.
Professionals in the sector, particularly long-standing
ones, with in-depth knowledge of the sector and of fishing
techniques, can be most helpful here.

2.10. Conservation of the marine environment

2.8. Monitoring

2.8.1.
As good as the institutional and legislative framework
may be, one eye has to be kept on its practical application.
The fact of having legal instruments to deal with fisheries
problems will be of no use whatsoever if they are not actually
used. The monitoring of regulated activities is the key to
securing a suitable resource conservation policy. As long as no
solution is found to the inconsistency of a system which has
Community rules and a Community legal framework but
leaves monitoring in the hands of national authorities, then
the CFP will always have its limitations.

2.8.2.
Indeed, despite efforts to date, there are still dispar-
ities between Member States in terms of both legislation and
monitoring. The old problem of differences between Member
States remains in relation not only to sanctions but also to
their application.

There is increasing awareness of the fact that the sea
2.10.1.
is vulnerable and that the quality of the marine environment is
fundamental to the stability not only of fishing activities, but
also of all other economic activities for which the sea is a key
input.

2.10.2.
Fisheries depend on biological conditions which are
heavily influenced by environmental factors. As far as fishing
is concerned, it is nowadays accepted that the quality of the
environment has a direct impact on the capacity of living
organisms to develop and on their suitability as a foodstuff for
human consumption. Dissolved oxygen levels and the nutritive
content of the water, the presence of chemical pollutants, high
levels of radioactive waste residue and pathogenic micro-
organisms, together with a number of practices inconducive
to the environmental management of the coastline, all have an
enormous influence on the ecosystem and water quality.
Regrettably, there are frequent instances of the sea being
treated as a dumping ground for rubbish and all kinds of
pollutants. Even within the EU, people continue to adopt
attitudes and practices which damage the marine environment
and the species which live in it. The ‘polluter pays’ principle
should also be applied, and compensation should be paid to
the injured parties.

11.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 139/99

2.10.3.
Studies and research into the effects of pollution,
climate and air quality on the marine environment will have
to be more focused and substantial progress must be made
towards integrated management of coastal zones, so that
ecological and environmental best practice becomes a reality.

3.

Economic sustainability

3.1. Economic and social cohesion

3.2. Social policy

3.2.1.
There should be an active social policy to back up
the restructuring which is going to be necessary and the
sacrifices which will have to be agreed to in all Member States
in order to cut back fishing fleets in line with current levels of
fishery resources.

3.2.2.
Socio-economic measures will be needed to cushion
the effects of withdrawing boats from service and fishermen
leaving the sector, but steps will also have to be taken to
prepare for new, younger fishermen who can replace those
who have taken early retirement.

New approaches for boosting productivity, improv-
3.1.1.
ing fishermen’s living conditions and addressing other fisheries-
related aspects will only succeed if steps are taken to redress
the current imbalance between fishing capacity and resources.

The Pesca programme was not a great practical
3.2.3.
success. Nonetheless, the Committee thinks it important to
continue to have a specific instrument for social policy in the
sector.

3.1.2.
For the regions concerned, the importance of fishe-
ries and all ancillary activities, both upstream and downstream,
extends far beyond their contribution to GDP.

3.3. Health and safety

3.1.3.
Fishing constitutes a hub around which a whole
series of communities revolve, and these play a key role in
maintaining social balance and ensuring regional management;
this role is difficult to quantify in economic terms.

3.1.4.
Any revisions or proposed adjustments to the CFP
should be based on detailed studies and analyses that take
account of the impact on the sector in each Member State, and
especially in those regions which are particularly dependent
on fisheries. The worst affected regions should be helped to
create new job opportunities or to restructure the sector.

3.1.5.
The CFP must play a full part in the drive for
economic and social cohesion, by preparing for the adjust-
ments necessary to safeguard these cradles of employment,
boost local production and living standards and guarantee
supplies.

3.1.6.
Coastal fishing, which is after all a more clearly
community-oriented type of fishing guaranteeing the develop-
ment of local economies and coastal areas and binding them
together, should be given more support from the CFP.

3.3.1. W o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s

3.3.1.1.
Only a small proportion of Community legislation
on working conditions and the working environment applies
to the fisheries sector, despite the fact that this is one of the
most dangerous occupations in Europe.

3.3.1.2.
The Committee thinks that minimum standards
must be laid down for working and living conditions on
fishing vessels. These standards should cover such factors as
noise, vibrations, accommodation facilities and proper hand-
ling of fishing gear and equipment.

3.3.2. C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d e q u i p m e n t o f

f i s h -

i n g v e s s e l s

fishing
The introduction of basic safety standards for all
vessels, and of minimum standards for safety equipment, will
do much to reduce the number of accidents in the fishing
industry. The Committee calls on all Member States to ratify
the 1997 Torremolinos Protocol. The protocol should also be
used as a basis for Community legislation applying to all
vessels irrespective of their size.

C 139/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.5.2001

3.3.3. T r a i n i n g a n d c e r t i f i c a t i o n

3.3.3.1.
The large number of accidents is partly due to the
absence of minimum safety training standards for all fishing
crew. Accidents could be avoided if crew were better trained
in safety methods and procedures.

3.3.3.2.
The Committee considers that safety training
should be introduced in the EU as a matter of urgency.
Ratification and implementation, by all Member States, of the
1995 STCW-F Convention (1) on minimum training standards
should be a priority.

3.3.4. R e c r u i t m e n t a n d e m p l o y m e n t

3.3.4.1.
In many regions which depend on fisheries and
have a long tradition in the sector, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to recruit young fishermen. The Committee considers
that, aside from the question of pay, the sector would attract
more young people if it was able to invest more in safety and
compliance with international standards, and offer better living
and working conditions on board. Support and incentives for
modernising the fleet should help here.

The recent crisis sparked by the sharp increase in
3.3.4.2.
fuel prices also highlighted the need to rethink some of the
remuneration systems in the fisheries sector, as these too can
deter new entrants. In some widely used remuneration systems,
increases in fuel costs are directly factored into pay, and this
seriously affects the income of many fishermen.

3.3.4.3.
The Committee calls on the social partners,
especially at national level, to explore ways of resolving this
problem and improving income stability. This would also
make the sector more attractive to new entrants.

3.4.2.
As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, this
sector is fundamental to the economy and dynamism of a
number of regions and local populations. For the sector to be
viable, fisheries production must remain competitive and in
good shape, bearing in mind that the nutritional qualities of
fish are increasingly recommended for a balanced, healthy diet.

3.4.3.
Greater attention should be paid to making market
mechanisms more dynamic, and to investing in a quality-based
policy and in factors which could create real value added for
fisheries products.

3.4.4.
The best conditions must be secured for supplies
entering the Community market to plug the deficit in fisheries
products, otherwise consumers and a major part of the fishing
industry could seriously suffer.

3.4.5.
Nevertheless, guaranteeing supplies by recourse to
external sources and imports must not mean contravening
Community legislation or international rules and good prac-
tices in this sector.

3.4.6.
Products from third countries competing on the
Community market do not always comply with legal pro-
visions. The Committee reiterates the need for stricter monitor-
ing throughout the Union of the application of these legal
provisions regarding imports and fish landed from third
country vessels or vessels flying flags of convenience.

The official

3.4.7.
introduction of labelling for fisheries
products, indicative of good practice in fisheries and com-
pliance with health and hygiene legislation, could offer con-
sumers a valuable guarantee that a product is wholesome and
was fished in keeping with the rules.

3.4. Common market organisation

4.

The international dimension

3.4.1.
The common market organisation is an instrument
of the CFP and has to evolve in a way which is consistent with
developments in other aspects of the policy, with a view to the
integrated development of the whole sector.

4.1. Fishing agreements with third countries

(1) International convention on standards of training, certification
and watchkeeping for fishing vessel personnel (STCW-F), 1995.

These agreements enable the EU to reduce its chronic
4.1.1.
deficit in marine products, whilst preserving the traditional
fishing activities of Community fleets.

11.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 139/101

4.1.2.
It has thus been generally possible to secure a balance
in the single market and, to a certain extent, to obtain vital
stability in fishermen’s incomes.

4.3. EU representation in regional fisheries organisations

4.3.1.
more resources in this sphere.

The Commission should be given a greater role and

This issue should nevertheless be carefully reviewed
4.1.3.
in the light of recent developments in renewing the agreements.
Existing agreements, such as the one with Morocco, should be
renewed, and new agreements should be concluded to flesh
out the existing arrangements.

4.3.2.
Fishing sector professionals and the socio-economic
partners could be allowed greater involvement in such rep-
resentation, particularly by involving them in the preparations
for these meetings.

In any case,

in terms of both employment and
4.1.4.
supplying the Community market, priority should be given
wherever possible to the ‘first generation’ agreements.

4.1.5. Moreover, the EU should ensure that agreements
with third countries, particularly the ‘second generation’
agreements, are favourable to the economic and social develop-
ment of
the fishermen and general population in these
countries. The ILO Convention on basic trade union rights
should form an integral part of all new agreements.

4.2.

Illegal, unregulated and undeclared fishing

4.2.1.
Several international organisations have been turning
their attention to illegal, unregulated and undeclared fishing
activities. This work has led to the approval of a number of
international agreements and codes by the United Nations and
the FAO.

4.2.2.
The Committee considers that implementation of
these agreements is a fundamental step towards proper
management of fishery resources. It calls on the Commission
to promote their adoption at all levels.

4.4. EU enlargement

4.4.1.
It is vitally important that the social partners be
involved in the various aspects of negotiations, watching over
the impact on all strands of
the CFP and on resource
exploitation and the labour market in particular.

4.4.2.
In this sector, as in others, it is essential that the new
Member States have fully adopted the Community acquis by
the time of accession, guaranteeing the safety and quality
standards of the EU.

5. Making the CFP more dynamic

Two further steps seem to be crucial for making all strands of
the CFP more dynamic. The first is to boost the role and
powers of the Commission, since it is best placed to promote
the Union’s interest. The second, as part of moves to enhance
the role of local fishing communities, is to facilitate more
decentralised and/or regionalised management of some aspects
of the CFP.

6. Conclusions

6.1.
A study of the CFP inevitably leads us to take stock of
this policy, possibly to criticise its shortcomings and limitations
and above all to trace out guidelines that will prepare it for the
challenges it will have to face over the next few years.

4.2.3.
The Committee also thinks that inspection activity
should extend to all aspects of safety and training as defined in
the 1999 Torremolinos Protocol and the STWC-F Convention.
Inspections should also cover compliance with Community
legislation on resource management, and with international
agreements and codes.

6.2.
In order to meet these challenges and remedy these
shortcomings as effectively as possible, it will be necessary for
everyone concerned — fisheries professionals, socio-economic
partners, Member States and Community institutions — to use
their powers of imagination and adaptability to find the best
solutions for the problems which arise.

C 139/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.5.2001

6.3.
At all events, more information is needed about the
situation in the sector, and the role of professionals and their
organisations must be bolstered, since the success of any
fisheries policy depends on shipowners’ and fishermen’s sup-
port for its objectives.

6.4.
The prospects of success will be all the greater if the
CFP helps full use to be made of Community resources by

turning these to best advantage, making businesses viable and
securing fair pay and up-to-date social conditions.

The Committee eagerly awaits the Commission’s prom-
6.5.
ised green paper containing ideas and suggestions
for
reforming the CFP. As in the past, the Committee will keep a
close watch on this important debate for the sector’s future,
and will be sure to give its views on the subject.

Brussels, 1 March 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS