Green Paper on the future of the common fisheries policy
Date: 2001-03-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area, fishing regulations

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 20.3.2001
COM(2001) 135 final

GREEN PAPER

ON THE FUTURE OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

(Presented by the Commission)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

The need for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy .......................................... 4

The basic principles of a Common Fisheries Policy .............................................. 5

Where are we and what will happen without change ?......................................... 6

3.1.

Conservation policy.................................................................................................. 6

3.1.1.

The current state of the main fish stocks ................................................................... 6

3.1.2.

The causes of current management deficiencies........................................................ 8

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

3.8.

3.9.

The environmental dimension ................................................................................... 9

Fleet policy............................................................................................................. 10

Decision-making process and stakeholders' involvement ........................................ 11

Monitoring and control .......................................................................................... 12

The economic and social dimension........................................................................ 13

Aquaculture............................................................................................................ 16

The processing industry.......................................................................................... 16

The international dimension of the CFP ................................................................. 17

3.10. Mediterranean fisheries.......................................................................................... 19

4.

5.

A set of clearer objectives for the future.............................................................. 20

The future CFP: options and preferences ........................................................... 21

5.1.

Strengthening and improving conservation policy................................................... 21

5.1.1. Multi-annual, multi-species and ecosystem-oriented management .......................... 22

5.1.2.

Technical measures ................................................................................................ 22

5.1.3. Monitoring and assessment of the conservation and management framework ......... 23

5.1.4. Access to waters and resources............................................................................... 23

5.1.4.1. Relative stability..................................................................................................... 23

5.1.4.2. The 6-to-12-mile zone ............................................................................................ 24

5.1.4.3. The Shetland Box and access to the North Sea........................................................ 24

5.2.

5.3.

Promoting the environmental dimension of the CFP............................................... 24

Promoting animal and public health and safety in the fisheries sector to ensure
consumer protection ............................................................................................... 25

5.4.

Fleet policy............................................................................................................. 26

2

5.5.

Improving Governance within the CFP................................................................... 28

5.5.1. Greater involvement of stakeholders....................................................................... 28

5.5.2. Meeting local management needs and emergency situations effectively.................. 29

5.5.3. Better integration of scientific advice into the decision-making process.................. 29

5.5.4.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)........................................................ 30

5.6.

5.7.

Monitoring, control and enforcement...................................................................... 30

Strengthening the social and economic dimension of the CFP ................................ 31

5.7.1. A new approach to economic management ............................................................. 32

5.7.2. New priorities for support to aquaculture................................................................ 33

5.7.3.

Promoting the processing industry.......................................................................... 34

5.7.4. Addressing other social issues ................................................................................ 34

5.8.

External relations................................................................................................... 35

5.8.1. Multilateral co-operation ........................................................................................ 35

5.8.2. Bilateral co-operation ............................................................................................. 36

5.9.

Mediterranean fisheries.......................................................................................... 38

5.10.

Research and scientific advice................................................................................ 40

6.

Follow-up actions.................................................................................................. 40

3

GREEN PAPER ON THE FUTURE OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

1.

THE NEED FOR REFORM OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

Almost twenty years from its inception, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is
confronted with major challenges. The policy has not delivered sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources and will need to be changed if it is to do so. Its
shortcomings can be expressed in conservation, economic and political terms.

As far as conservation is concerned, many stocks are at present outside safe
biological limits. They are too heavily exploited or have low quantities of mature fish
or both. The situation is particularly serious for demersal fish stocks such as cod,
hake and whiting. If current trends continue, many stocks will collapse. At the same
time the available fishing capacity of the Community fleets far exceeds that required
to harvest fish in a sustainable manner.

The current situation of resource depletion results, to a good extent, from setting
annual catch limits in excess of those proposed by the Commission on the basis of
scientific advice, and from fleet management plans short of those required. Poor
enforcement of decisions actually taken has also contributed to over-fishing.

The precarious situation of the fisheries sector is not specific to the Community.
There is world-wide concern for the critical state of many fish stocks and for fleet
over-capacity in the context of increasing demand for fish consumption.

The fisheries sector is characterised by economic fragility resulting from over-
investment, rapidly rising costs and a shrinking resource base: this is reflected in
poor profitability and steadily declining employment. In the future the Community
fisheries sector will have to be significantly smaller than it is today, if it is to survive.

Politically, the stakeholders do not feel sufficiently involved in the management of
the policy and many believe that
there is no level-playing field in terms of
compliance and enforcement.

Apart from these internal systemic weaknesses, there are also external challenges
that make reform necessary: the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union,
the globalisation of the economy, the emergence of new players in world fisheries
reflecting the legitimate aspirations of many developing countries to expand their
own fishing industry, the increased focus on environmental and development policy
considerations in fisheries management and the growing interest of civil society in
fisheries matters are some of today's challenges to which the CFP needs to find
satisfactory answers.

The picture is not entirely negative. The CFP has yielded some positive results
during the last 20 years. It has managed, to a large extent, to contain conflicts at sea,
provide some degree of stability to the fisheries sector and, so far, avoid the total
collapse of stocks that some areas of the world have occasionally witnessed.

4

However, these results have been achieved at a high price in terms of the long-term
viability of the fisheries sector. Today's situation calls for a thorough and urgent
reform of the CFP independent from the legal requirements linked to the 2002
deadline1.

2.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF A COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

There is a large world wide consensus on the overall objective of fisheries policy as
defined in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: a responsible
fisheries policy has to ensure effective conservation, management and development
of living aquatic resources with due respect for the eco-system and bio-diversity in
order to provide, both for present and future generations, a vital source of food,
employment, recreation, trade and economic well-being for people.

Although there is no specific fisheries chapter, the Treaty establishing the European
Community ("the Treaty") assigns to the CFP the same general objectives as the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Article 33):

• to increase productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the
rational development of production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of
production, in particular labour;

• to ensure a fair standard of living for the (fishing) community, in particular by

increasing individual earnings;

• to stabilise markets;

• to assure the availability of supplies;

• to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices

• to ensure the principle of non-discrimination (Article 34).

Article 6 of the Treaty stipulates that environmental protection requirements must be
integrated into Community policies,
in particular with a view to promoting
sustainable development. Moreover, Article 174 requires, inter-alia, that Community
policy on the environment shall be based on the precautionary principle.

The CFP has also to take into account consumer protection requirements
(Article 153) and the objectives of economic and social cohesion (Article 159).

Finally, the CFP has also to take into account the objectives set by the Treaty in the
sphere of development co-operation (Articles 177 and 178).

Article 2 of Council Regulation No 3760/92 (OJ L 389/1, 31.12.92) stipulates that as
exploitation activities are concerned the general objectives of the CFP shall be to
protect and conserve available and accessible living marine aquatic resources, and to

1

The 2002 deadline marks the expiry/renewal of three components in the legislation currently in force,
i.e. the rules of access to the 6-12-mile limit, to the Shetland Box and to the North Sea. (Article 14(2) of
Council Regulation No 3760/92 and Acts of Accession of 1985 and 1994).

5

rational and responsible exploitation on a sustainable basis,

provide for
in
appropriate economic and social conditions for the sector, taking account of its
implication for the marine ecosystem, and in particular taking account of the needs of
both producers and consumers.

The CFP is confronted with a number of objectives and legal requirements which
sometimes may seem contradictory or incompatible, in particular, in the short-term.
As it stands today, the CFP aims at:

– ensuring the conservation of increasingly fragile fish stocks while promoting the

continuation of fishing activities;

– modernising the means of production while limiting fishing effort;

– ensuring the proper implementation of conservation measures while Member

States retain responsibility in the field of monitoring and sanctions;

– maintaining employment while reducing fleet capacity;

– ensuring a decent income for fishermen even though the Community's own supply
of fish products is declining and the EU market depends more heavily on imports
each year; and

– acquiring fishing rights in the waters of third countries without threatening the

sustainable exploitation of fisheries.

It is now time to think more clearly about the objectives of the CFP and to prioritise
them.

3.

WHERE ARE WE AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT CHANGE ?

3.1.

Conservation policy

• From a biological point of view, the sustainability of a high number of stocks
will be threatened if the current levels of exploitation are maintained and, at
present, this risk is highest for demersal round fish stocks. Improvement in the
state of many stocks is urgent.

• The CFP has not made use of all the available tools foreseen by Regulation
3760/92. There has been limited progress in adopting multi-annual approaches
and effort management has yielded poor results.

• Council has fixed some TACs systematically at

levels higher than those
proposed by the Commission on the basis of the indications of scientific
advice; over-fishing, discards and fleet over-capacity have also contributed to
the current problems.

• There are significant gaps and weaknesses in scientific advice and information.

6

3.1.1.

The current state of the main fish stocks

The quantities of mature demersal fish in the sea as assessed by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) have,
in many cases, declined
significantly over the last 25 years. On average, these quantities were about 90 %
greater in the early 1970's than in the late 1990's. The general decline in landings is
similar. For some stocks such as cod even more drastic reductions in mature fish
have occurred. The biomass of pelagic and industrial species increased by, on
average, 20% since the late 1970's and mid 1980's at least in part following the
recovery of herring from the low levels of the late 1970's.

The overall trend is of an increased proportion of the stocks being taken each year
(increased fishing mortality rate) which has led to the erosion of the quantities of
mature fish. In recent years, for many stocks quantities of mature fish in the sea have
been below or very close to the minimum levels required to provide high probability
of sustainability (precautionary levels of stock biomass), whereas historically they
tended to be above such levels. Similarly, many stocks have been subject to a level of
fishing mortality rate in excess of precautionary levels whereas, historically, the
fishing mortality rate was less than the precautionary level.

From a biological point of view, the sustainability of a high number of stocks will be
threatened if the current levels of exploitation are maintained and, at present, this risk
is highest for demersal round fish stocks which are of high commercial value. Recent
scientific advice has indicated the very poor state of cod stocks in the North Sea, to
the West of Scotland and in the Irish Sea and for the northern hake stock which
inhabits the geographical area from the Skagerrak to the Bay of Biscay. In all cases,
fishing mortality rates are currently at or close to historical maxima and the
quantities of mature fish are at or close to historical minima. In addition, recent year
classes have tended to be of low abundance. Specific rebuilding plans are required
for these stocks. A start was made for cod in the Irish Sea in 2000, similar measures
have been taken this year for North Sea cod and others are in preparation for cod
stocks in the West of Scotland.

The situation is better for pelagic stocks. Stocks of small pelagic species (herring,
sprat, mackerel, horse mackerel, anchovy, sardine) and species which support
industrial fisheries (Norway pout, sandeels) have generally not deteriorated over the
last twenty years and especially not over the last ten years. It was possible to
implement effective rebuilding measures for the North Sea herring rapidly in 1996
and 1997, whereas this fishery had to be completely closed in the late 1970's because
catch limitations had not been adopted early enough. As far as bluefin tuna is
concerned,
the stock is subject since 1994 to catch limitations agreed in the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Despite
these limitations, ICCAT's scientific committee considers that the stock is clearly
over-exploited and that in order to stop the decline of the biomass, a reduction of
25% in fishing mortality would be necessary.

In the case of benthic resources (Norway lobster, flatfish) a general economic
overexploitation pattern can be observed but at the biological level the situation
cannot be considered as systematically serious. Within this group of resources,
important stocks (sole, plaice, Norway lobster, megrim,
fishing of the most
monkfish) could be maintained with reduced fishing effort and therefore with lower
production costs. Finally, there are also resources such as skates and rays, and the

7

minor flatfish species (including turbot, brill, lemon sole, witches, dabs) that are not
subject to detailed scientific follow-up but which may also be overexploited.

The situation varies from one zone to another, especially in terms of apparent
evolution of fishing mortality in the mid-to long-term. In the Baltic, the current
situation does not seem to be sustainable. In the North Sea, it has not been possible to
reverse the decline of round fish stocks nor to ensure in the case of sole and plaice a
security margin in accordance with the precautionary principle which would have
also improved the economic situation for these fisheries. In Western waters, fishing
mortality rates have been increasing catching up with and often exceeding historical
levels observed in the North Sea. In the Mediterranean, the available scientific data
are less complete but there is a large consensus that many important stocks are being
over-fished.

To sum up, many stocks are at present outside or almost outside safe biological
limits. They are too heavily exploited or have low quantities of mature fish or both.
At present,
trends
continue, however, many stocks will collapse. Improvement in the state of many fish
stocks is urgent.

the situation for most stocks is not catastrophic. If current

3.1.2.

The causes of current management deficiencies

To control exploitation rates of fish stocks, the CFP has almost exclusively used
upper limits on the quantities of fish which may be caught in a year (Total Allowable
Catches or TACs and associated national quotas) and establishment of measures such
as mesh sizes, closed areas, closed seasons (technical measures). Attempts in the past
to combine such measures (to control output from fisheries) with measures to control
fishing effort (input to fisheries) have been largely unsuccessful. It has not been
possible to take advantage of all tools available in Regulation 3760/92. There was
limited progress in adopting multi-annual approaches and fishing effort management
yielded poor results.

Difficulties with TACs are due to the Council's systematic fixing, in some cases, at
levels higher than indicated in the scientific advice, over-fishing, discards and illegal
or black landings and to the over-capacity of the fleet. Moreover TACs can only play
a limited role in the management of fisheries in which many species of fish are taken
simultaneously by each operation of the fishing gear (the mixed or multi-species
fisheries).

is still

It
too early to judge the effectiveness of the new technical measures
Regulation in force since the beginning of 2000. But this set of measures can only
partially remedy the current problems. For many stocks, the authorised mesh-sizes
remain too small for the effective protection of juveniles. Control of mesh-sizes
remains difficult especially when more than one mesh size can be used during the
same fishing trip. Compliance with technical measures also remains problematic
because of the complexity of the regulations and their geographic disparities. The use
of selective techniques is far from having fully achieved its potential. It has also not
been possible to sufficiently involve fishermen to guarantee their support and
contribution of their expertise.

The protection of small juveniles is particularly difficult to put into practice. The
situation has deteriorated to such an extent that larger fish have become rare and the

8

economic benefit from fishing depends on catching small fish, even if they are
subject to protective measures. The failure to implement several technical measures
in the Mediterranean illustrates this point.

inevitably,

There are also weaknesses in scientific advice and information. The number of
competent fishery scientists and economists in Member States is limited. The fishery
scientists are often, but
too involved in the year-to-year routine of
providing advice on TAC's and quotas to allow time for innovative thought and
investigation of alternative possibilities for management measures. The economists
suffer from the fact that no international organisation exists through which their work
can be co-ordinated and developed. Data are not complete for all areas and domains.
Overall there is a lack of analysis of economic aspects , multi-species fisheries, and
the inter-relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality rate and hence
appropriate level of TAC.

3.2.

The environmental dimension

• The CFP should do much more to integrate the environmental dimension into

policy-making in a proactive manner.

• There is a lack or insufficiency of knowledge about the functioning of marine
the

fishing which exacerbates

ecosystems
side-effects of
environmental shortcomings of the CFP.

and the

• Pollution from industrial or other human activities has a negative impact on
fish quality and fish availability and on the ecosystems. Appropriate measures
need to be taken to counteract such negative effects.

All fishing activities have an impact on the ecosystem but the severity of this impact
and the time required to reverse its effects are often not known. There is increasing
concern over degradation of habitats as a result of fishing activities. Removals of
individuals from natural populations may also have consequences on biodiversity
and/or the effective functioning of ecosystems, whether such removals are at a level
which threatens species with extinction or local disappearance.

A reasonable balance has to be struck between environmental and fisheries interests.
On the one hand the very nature of fishing means that in order to keep the mortality
of species of no commercial interest within tolerable limits, some forms of fishing
should be subject to restrictions. On the other hand, the sustainability of the fishing
sector is dependent on a well-functioning ecosystem and the species within it.

The CFP has still much to do to integrate the environmental dimension into policy-
making. The over-capacity in EU fleets has resulted in overexploitation of target
stocks and excessive pressure on non –target species and on habitats. The CFP has
not managed to sufficiently integrate the environmental problems
into all
in a proactive manner. The problem has been
management considerations
exacerbated by a lack or insufficiency of knowledge about the functioning of marine
ecosystems and the side-effects of fishing.

to be fair it

to underline that many problems in the marine
But
environment are not due to fishing activities only and that fishing has suffered from
environmental damage. Pollution has a negative impact on the quality of fish which

is important

9

reaches the consumer. Pollution from industrial and other human activities and
climate change have also contributed to stock decline or lack of fish in some areas.
Measures to counteract the effects of these factors on stocks are urgently needed
otherwise conservation and management policy for the fishery resources will be
constantly undermined.

It is also important to recall that in many areas environmental problems may be the
result of the combined impacts of fisheries and another activity. For instance, the
joint impact of tourism and fisheries may degrade habitats which would not have
been damaged by only one of these activities. This implies the need to ensure that
fishing activity and other activities, especially close to the shore, are managed in a
coherent manner. The process of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
provides a set of tools to ensure the necessary policy co-ordination.

There are, however, examples where progress has been achieved and action is in
hand to improve the situation, such as the restriction on the North Sea sandeel
fisheries to safeguard seabirds and the drift net ban which can contribute to the
protection of sea mammals. The Community has begun to implement medium-term
strategies in accordance with the precautionary principle.

The Commission is in the process of integrating environmental concerns into the
CFP, as for other policy sectors, in accordance with the mandate of Article 6 of the
Treaty. The forthcoming Communication "Elements of a strategy for the integration
of environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy"
indicates specific objectives and means to accomplish that mandate. Essential
elements of the suggested strategy are i) the adoption of an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management, ii) the embracing of the environmental principles
of Article 174 of the Treaty, and iii) the implementation of the forthcoming
"Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries" and other specific initiatives, some of which
were described in the Communication "Fisheries management and Nature
Conservation in the marine environment" (COM(1999)363).

3.3.

Fleet policy

• The current fleet is much too large. Technological progress is increasing the
efficiency of fishing vessels and it undermines the efforts of capacity
reduction programmes.

• The Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) were set by the Council at
levels that were not ambitious enough to address the problem of excess
capacity effectively and have often not been enforced. They were also
complex to administer.

• Subsidies

for construction/modernisation and running costs may have

aggravated the current situation.

Fishing capacity is currently defined in terms of tonnage and engine power, but there
are many other factors that determine the fishing mortality generated by the fleet.
Advances in technology and design mean that new vessels exert much more fishing
effort than old vessels of equivalent tonnage and power. What is clear, in any event,
is that the fleet is currently much too large. The "Gulland" report produced in 1990
and the "Lassen" report produced in 1995, suggested that the necessary reductions of

10

fishing mortality for the prudent management of stocks should be about 40% and in
many cases much higher.

The problem of excess capacity has been addressed by multi-annual guidance
programmes (MAGPs). MAGP III (1992 to 1996) was relatively efficient and the
reduction actually achieved over this period was approximately 15% in tonnage and
10% in power. It has to be recognised, however, that the efficiency of fishing vessels
is increasing every year due to technological progress. Advances in vessel gear and
design, fish finding equipment and telecommunications all contribute to this.

Contrary to the Commission's proposal, the current programme, the MAGP IV (1997
– 2001), is much weaker, calling for reductions in the Community fleet of just 3% in
capacity and 2% in activity over its 5 year period of application. Indeed, so weak are
these objectives that the Community fleet as a whole had already met the final
capacity objectives for 2001 when the MAGP IV was adopted in 1997. In addition,
the introduction of combined activity and capacity reductions make the MAGP IV
very complex and costly to administer, both for Member States and for the
Commission.

Aid policy has also often undermined the objectives pursued by the fleet policy.
Subsidies for construction, modernisation and running costs may have aggravated the
current situation since they have not been accompanied by a sufficient decrease in
capacity.

Continuation of the current system would not only be unable to cut the excessive
capacity of the fleet but would lead to an increased fishing effort in a situation where
the state of the stocks cannot even support the present effort.

3.4.

Decision-making process and stakeholders' involvement

• The current framework is not well suited for responding quickly to local and

emergency circumstances.

• Stakeholders do not feel sufficiently involved in some important aspects of the

policy.

Taking decisions at the Community level is not well suited for responding quickly to
local and emergency circumstances affecting one or more Member States and
involving measures such as the real-time short-term closure of a fishing area, in cases
where a decision needs to be taken within hours to avoid irreparable damage on
stocks. It might, therefore, be necessary to adjust the legal framework to permit such
action by one or more Member States.

It is has been clear from the application of the CFP so far and from the regional
the stakeholders do not feel sufficiently
consultations on the 2002 review that
the
involved in some important aspects of the Policy, such as, for example,
elaboration of scientific advice and the adoption of technical measures. Many
fishermen, in particular, believe that their views and knowledge are not sufficiently
taken into account by managers and scientists. This lack of involvement undermines
support for the conservation measures adopted. The interested parties do not consider
satisfactory the existing consultation arrangements, such as the Advisory Committee
on Fisheries and Aquaculture, which are designed to take into account the full range

11

of views of the fisheries sector and other stakeholders. The regional workshops that
have been recently organised by the Commission to address specific management
problems have been considered as a move to the right direction but it is clear that the
stakeholders request more than that.

the full

Various proposals have already been put on the table to rectify the lack of adequate
range of stakeholders. These include a system of
involvement of
decentralised regional or zonal management, a system of
regional advisory
committees providing advice to the Commission and a system of Community
individual fishing rights administered through a centralised Community management
framework with adequate involvement of scientists and industry.

In any case, more political determination is needed to face the problems and take the
corresponding decisions. But some procedural changes are also needed. Continuation
of the existing procedures would without doubt
lead to further mistrust and
scepticism. The reform of the CFP can only succeed if fishermen consider that
fisheries policy takes into account their interests views and experience.

3.5.

Monitoring and control

• The current arrangements are insufficient and cannot ensure a level-playing

field across the Union.

• The organisation of monitoring and control is fragmented. Better co-ordination

and optimal use of monitoring and inspection resources are needed.

• A satisfactory follow-up of infringements has not been achieved.

Monitoring and control activities to enforce the CFP are widely seen as insufficient
and discriminatory. In almost all Member States, fishermen are calling for a more
centralised and harmonised control system at Community level which, they believe,
would provide more efficient action and equal treatment throughout the Community.

Although the latest amendments to the "Control" Regulation No 2847/93 (OJ L 261,
20.10.93) went in the right direction, proposals to strengthen Community rules and to
increase the powers of Community inspectors did not obtain agreement from the
Member States. The absence of harmonisation of sanctions and the limited powers of
Community inspectors (in particular due to the fact that they are not allowed to
inspections) are major obstacles to effective action at
conduct
Community level.

independent

A satisfactory follow-up of infringements has not been achieved. Heterogeneous
legal systems often result in different treatment of infringements from one Member
State to another with respect both to the follow-up of an individual case and to the
imposition of sanctions. Moreover, the Commission has not been able to pursue
Member States' infringements adequately due to the legal limitations of the current
system.

At present, the organisation of control and monitoring is fragmented. The use of
inspection and monitoring resources is far from optimal. The Commission has not
been granted either the human resources or the powers to enable it effectively to

12

execute the task assigned to it. The situation in the Member States is not satisfactory
either.

It has also not been possible to adopt a Community position on control of fishing
activities in the framework of regional fisheries organisations (RFOs). There is a
need to define the respective responsibilities of the Commission and the Member
States with the latter assuming the central role in the implementation of monitoring
arrangements adopted and applied by RFOs. The lack of a clear Community strategy
on control and monitoring of fishing activities in international waters jeopardises
efforts to meet
the Community's international obligations and to ensure the
continuation of the Community fleet's presence in those waters.

The CFP reform offers the opportunity to reopen the debate on the improvement of
control arrangements and to explore new options for more effective penalties. If this
opportunity is missed the CFP will suffer a fatal blow to its credibility.

3.6.

The economic and social dimension

• The CFP has a significant economic dimension. 1.1 billion

€

of public money

(Community and national) is injected into the fisheries sector each year.

• Over-capacity has negative economic effects on the profitability of the fleet.
Improvement of the economic and financial performance of the fleet requires a
reduction of the overall level of the capital employed.

• There is a steady decline of fisheries employment.

• If current policies and approaches are not changed the European fishing sector

will become less and less sustainable and economically viable.

Reference is made in Regulation No 3760/92 to the long-term development of the
sector,
the particular needs of regions where local populations are especially
dependent on fisheries and related activities and the economic and social
consequences of restructuring. The economic and social impact of the CFP, however,
has been neglected.

through the Financial Instrument

The CFP has a significant economic impact. The common market organisation and
the common commercial policy offer price support and tariff protection to the
for
Community producer. The Community,
Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), intervenes significantly in the fisheries sector, financing
investment
in both fishing vessels and onshore installations for processing and
aquaculture. It also finances the costs of fishing under external Fisheries Agreements.
Finally, some state aids falling outside the FIFG are also provided to the sector. The
combined effect of these policies at Community and national level leads to the
1,1 billion of public money into the fisheries sector each year,
injection of about
which represents a significant proportion of the value of the total Community
€
production (about

7 billion for fishing landings and

2 billion for aquaculture).

€

€

The problems arising within the fisheries sector itself have consequences for
fisheries-dependent areas. The long-term development of the sector, the particular
needs of regions where local populations are especially dependent on fisheries and
related activities and the economic and social consequences of restructuring are

13

referred to in Regulation N° 3760/92. In addition, under the Structural Funds, the
European Union’s less prosperous coastal areas and islands are eligible for major
programmes of support under Objective 1 (regions where development is lagging
behind) during the period up to 2006. These programmes cover the major part of the
coastal areas and islands belonging to four countries: Portugal, Spain, Italy and
Greece. Other areas are supported under Objective 2 (areas undergoing restructuring)
which targets, among others, fisheries-dependent areas in difficulty. Under this
heading, areas in five Member States containing 1 million of population are eligible
for Objective 2 support. A special common programme, PESCA, was also introduced
in the previous planning period, 1994-99, to help the adaptation of fishermen to the
changes affecting the sector and to prepare them for alternative activities.

Despite the importance of Community economic involvement in fishing, however,
the definition of an economic or "industrial" strategy for the fishing industry has
remained the responsibility of the Member States, which pursue very different and
sometimes conflicting objectives in this area (in contrast to other sectors where the
Community has followed a policy of structural adjustment). In order to improve the
effectiveness of Community intervention there is a pressing need for greater
clarification of policy objectives.

is difficult

Given the heterogeneity of the fishing sector it
to provide a single
diagnosis of its economic and financial performance and of the conditions for its
viability in the short and long term. However, the financial returns of large-scale
fishing - data on small-scale fisheries are scarce - are often modest and fluctuate
greatly from year to year, placing the sector in a permanently unstable situation. In a
number of cases, profit margins frequently do not make it possible to cover costs and
there was some
capital depreciation. After several years of substantial deficit,
improvement
the result of any
fundamental change in conditions but rather of an increase in the value of landings
and a reduction, in real terms, of the cost of fuel (which has now been sharply
reversed). In other words, financial improvement has been the result of cyclical
rather than structural factors.

in the mid-1990's. This improvement was not

The close correlation between turnover and the capacity of fishing enterprises to
make a profit is an indicator of the critical importance for profitability of the balance
between the number and capacity of vessels, on the one hand, and available fishery
resources, on the other. Where there is excess capacity, a more-or-less constant value
of landings has to be shared between a larger number of players. Over-capacity has a
number of negative economic effects. It reduces the capacity of each vessel to earn
an adequate income. The profitability of the fleet
is jeopardised by the under-
utilisation of investments; at the same time, the absence of sufficient return on capital
delays modernisation and further weakens competitiveness. Improvement of the
economic and financial performance of the Community fishing fleet
therefore
requires first-and-foremost a reduction in the overall level of capital employed.

Today's subsidies to investment in the fishing industry and certain taxation measures,
such as tax-free fuel, do not contribute to this objective. By artificially reducing the
costs and risks of investment in an already over-capitalised industry, they promote
over-supply of capital. Each newly-subsidised vessel reduces the productivity and
profitability of every other vessel in the fishery concerned. Such a policy also has an
adverse effect on competition, as subsidised and unsubsidised vessels share the same
fishing grounds and market. And the high costs to vessel-owners of repayments on

14

capital investment reduce their ability to reward their labour-force better (or to
expand it). As a consequence, the sector has attracted more resources than would
have otherwise been the case and has thus imposed a cost on the rest of the economy
as resources utilised could be more profitably exploited elsewhere.

The fisheries sector is steadily shrinking. Over the period 1990 to 1997, employment
has decreased in catching (-19%) and processing (-10%) and increased in aquaculture
(+22%); total employment in these areas shows a decrease of 13% (i.e. a loss of
60.000 jobs). This loss of employment is very different among the countries and
regions (with, for example, Greece showing a global increase and Denmark showing
a sharper decrease in all the sectors).

Over the same period, the dependence of the Community on fisheries showed some
changes. Although the vast majority of the areas dependent on fisheries in 1990 were
still dependent in 1997, the map of fisheries dependent regions strongly evolved.
There was a sharp fall in the degree of dependence of the most dependent areas,
particularly in Spain, but at the same time there has been an increase of dependence
in regions of Greece. A decrease in dependence on the catches/landings was, in some
areas, compensated by an increase in employment
in aquaculture. A tendency
towards increased dependence can be observed in some Objective 1 areas suffering
from low economic development and from the scarcity of alternative activities.

The general picture is characterised by a steady decline of fisheries employment. The
form of aid most favoured by the Community, i.e. aid for capital investment, may
have intensified the problem of over-capacity, low profitability and replacement of
labour by capital in the catching sector. It may also have tended to increase fisheries-
dependency, by giving more favourable treatment to the fisheries sector than to
sectors which might provide alternative employment to those leaving the fisheries
sector. A notable exception was the PESCA programme, in which the Community
actively sought to promote the adaptation of fishermen to alternative economic
activities; this programme was modest compared to other aids, however, and the
innovative elements were not sufficiently used.

A policy of trying to save jobs in fisheries-dependent regions by granting aid to the
fisheries sector may be self-defeating. Such a policy has not prevented the steady
shrinkage of EU fisheries employment at the rate of which has averaged 2 per cent
per annum in the catching sector, driven by scarcity of fisheries resources and
technological progress which has dramatically increased labour productivity. The
attraction of safer and better-paid jobs in other sectors has meant that in many areas it
is increasingly difficult to find crews for fishing vessels, in particular for distant-
water fishing fleets.

The economic policies so far pursued in the fisheries sector at Community or
national level leave much to be desired. If current policies and approaches are not
changed the European fishing sector will become less and less sustainable and
economically viable and its competitiveness even in its own market will be
threatened. Moreover, an overcapitalised and oversized fleet will jeopardise the
sustainability of fishery resources without solving the problem of employment in
regions in which fishing is economically important. It is imperative therefore that the
Community explores a new approach to economic management of the fisheries
sector.

15

A sustainable management of fisheries which restores fish stocks' productivity will
offer improved economic and social returns to both the industry and society as a
whole. In the long run, increased fish stocks will translate into higher catch per unit
of effort and increased profitability for the fishery possibly attracting new entrants.
Low stock levels have the opposite effect, leading to revenues that are too low to
cover total costs and to capital and labour exit. Even in the short to medium-term, a
reduction in capital and labour inputs will have a positive impact on net income for
those continuing to be employed since remaining vessels will be able to harvest more
fish at roughly the same operating costs.

3.7.

Aquaculture

• Aquaculture contributes substantially to the supply of fish products and

provides alternative employment in many fisheries dependent regions.

• European aquaculture needs to confront effectively the challenges arising from

environmental and health protection requirements.

Aquaculture development has contributed to the supply of fish products without
increasing pressure on wild stocks. It has also provided alternative employment in
many fisheries dependent regions.

Aquaculture has played a significant role in the improvement of the socio-economic
situation of coastal communities. Nonetheless, while the overall framework shows a
positive development, Community aquaculture still experiences a number of
problems. In particular, as aquaculture expands, it is increasingly seen as a threat to
other activities. The tourism industry is especially critical of aquaculture, which is
blamed for occupying space that could be used for recreation, as well as for
producing waste materials that affect the quality of nearby bathing water. In order to
ensure a stable future for aquaculture, it is important to address these conflicts with
other users of the coastal zones.

Competition from international
trade has also affected Community aquaculture
during the last decade. The ex-farm value per kilo of all fish farmed products was
reduced encouraging increased productivity and generating innovative approaches in
marketing.

the legislation introduced over

Some of
in particular on
environmental or health protection requirements, increased production costs leaving
less money for marketing and promotion.

the last decade,

instrument,

With regard to aquaculture, the Community policy is expressed primarily through its
principal financial
the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG), which intervenes everywhere but with preferential aid rates in Objective 1
areas. If this fund is undeniably a powerful European integration tool, the fact
remains that the FIFG has until now provided support mainly by capital grants for
the productive investments of companies.

3.8.

The processing industry

• The European processing industry is made of mainly small and medium
enterprises coping with insufficient and irregular and non-competitive

16

supplies, health and hygiene requirements, competition from third countries
and the appearance of major retail companies which set prices at lower levels.

• Significant Community structural aid has been given to the sector.

There are some 2000 processing enterprises in this industry. These are mainly Small
or Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which have had to cope with a number of problems:
insufficient, irregular and non-competitive supplies, combined with difficulties due
to outdated production equipment, partial conformity with health and hygiene
requirements, major competition from third countries products and the appearance of
the major retail companies which set prices at lower levels.

Supplies are a major problem, since the EU has a deficit in fishery products and
diminishing Community resources make the situation worse. The Community
industry is able to import fish at a reduced duty rate in order to be competitive.
Imports primarily involve semi-processed and frozen products that the Community
firms in turn process, adding value to these products.

In response to the problems the industry experienced in recent years, there was an
important restructuring movement which gave rise to a concentration process with
the emergence of major companies (often integrated into agri-feedstuff, financial or
major distribution groups), having, at least, a national, or even European dimension,
in general, producing multi-products with high-added value, or of major vertically
integrated companies which developed around the principle of privileged access to
raw material. These conglomerates have become major actors in the sector.

Between 1986 and 1999 Community aid policy to the processing industry evolved
from an accompanying policy to development and modernisation of the sector, to a
policy of restructuring and encouragement for the adoption of production techniques
allowing for an overall improvement of competitiveness.

3.9.

The international dimension of the CFP

• The current policy needs to adapt

to changing circumstances and new
challenges such as the emergence of new players, the legitimate aspirations of
many developing States to develop their fishing industry and the requirements
of sustainable development and responsible fisheries.

The Community has one of the largest fishing fleets in the world and although most
of it operates within Community waters, a significant part of the Community fishing
sector depends on access to non-Community resources, i.e. those which are shared
with third countries, those in the waters under the jurisdiction of more distant coastal
States or those in international waters. In all these cases, the definition of the
conditions of access has to be agreed between the Community and one or more
coastal or flag States.

Technical progress, the emergence of new fishing powers, the increasing number of
flag of convenience vessels not respecting the international rules and the aspirations
of newcomers to develop their fisheries sectors are changing the conditions of
competition beyond the traditional conflicts which characterise the world of fisheries
(gear conflicts, competition between small-scale and large-scale fisheries, etc.).
Moreover, the European distant water fleets are becoming less and less competitive

17

vis-à-vis the fleets of the new emerging fishing nations which are operating at lower
costs.

The future of the fisheries bilateral relations of the EC is uncertain. Many States are
trying to enhance their ability to develop their own fisheries and even to participate
in high seas fisheries. To that end there is an increasing need for co-operation in
areas
assistance related to human resources
development, technical assistance, transfer of technology, advisory and consultative
services, training and capacity to better manage their resources.

financial assistance,

such as

Many third countries where European fleets used to fish are also facing the problem
of resource depletion while fish supply is crucial for their food security and
economic development. Fishing activities in waters under the jurisdiction of the
developing countries meet difficulties seriously enhanced by the economic and social
situation such as the lack of knowledge about the aquatic resource and about the
impact of fishing activities on ecosystems, the difficulty in determining the "surplus"
of
the instability and risks which are
contradictory with long term investment, the lack of monitoring and control of
fishing activities and the difficulties to fight piracy and illegal fishing. Moreover, in
third countries where there is a necessity to reduce fleet capacity it is inconceivable
to ask for an increase of fishing possibilities for European vessels.

resource available for

foreign fleets,

The external fisheries policy, as expressed in the Community's bilateral Agreements,
faces also a number of weaknesses:

• the Fisheries Agreements are not always flexible enough to respond quickly to
emergency circumstances such as stocks decreasing, they are not multi-species
oriented, the precautionary principle is rarely mentioned and applied;

• the fishing possibilities offered to European vessels are not always based on the

real evolution of the resource;

• the fishing mortality generated by the European fleet is not always known;

• some Fisheries Agreements do not offer enough guarantees for the protection of

small-scale coastal fisheries;

• there is a problem of coherence inside the CFP between Fisheries Agreements on
one hand and vessel transfers subsidised by FIFG on the another. Vessels owned
by companies with predominantly European financial interests are competing for
the same resource but with different rules;

By adhering to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries the Community has
accepted to co-operate with developing States and to help them develop their
fisheries sectors. The future fisheries bilateral relations of the Community need to
take account of these commitments.

The Community external fisheries policy is often attacked in international fora and
therefore there is a need to improve both its credibility and image vis-à-vis
international public opinion.

18

If the current external fisheries policy is not adapted to changing circumstances and
the status of the Community as a major and responsible
to new challenges,
international player will be undermined.

3.10. Mediterranean fisheries

• Community policy in the Mediterranean has not met

expectations:
implementation of the technical measures Regulation for the Mediterranean
has not been satisfactory, data are lacking and there has been slow progress in
international co-operation.

The Mediterranean is a strategic area linking countries of very different cultural,
religious, ethnic and economic heritage and background. The CFP could play an
important political role in inter-Mediterranean co-operation based on a widespread
awareness of the importance of common resources and goals.

In contrast to structural and market policies, which have been fully implemented,
conservation and management measures have only been partially applied in the
Mediterranean. This
to the specific
characteristics of the Mediterranean fisheries:

is mainly due, amongst other

things,

– The continental shelf is generally very narrow and most fisheries take place in
waters under the jurisdiction of the coastal States. Most States do not claim
jurisdiction beyond the 12-mile territorial sea. Vessels flying the flag of non-
Mediterranean States, conduct intensive fishing of tuna and of other valuable fish
resources in international waters;

– Mediterranean fisheries are small-scale and local fleets predominantly consist of
small fishing boats in both national and international waters. Centuries-old
traditions and institutions, such as the Prud'hommies in France and the Cofradias
in Spain, still play a significant role in Mediterranean regions;

– Fisheries and aquaculture play an important role in the economy of a number of
areas. Indeed a major part of the Community's regions dependent on fisheries are
situated in the Mediterranean.

Since the early 1990's, the Community has taken a number of initiatives to try to
improve fisheries management in the Mediterranean. These included harmonisation
of technical measures, increasing the selectivity of fishing gears (including a ban on
driftnets) and strengthening international co-operation (organisation of the Crete and
Venice Diplomatic Conferences and the Community's accession to the relevant
the General Fisheries Commission for the
regional fisheries organisations,
Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

i.e.

However, the results did not meet expectations: both international co-operation and
the strengthening of GFCM procedures are progressing slowly while the internal
measures suffer from lack of acceptance (and therefore compliance) by fishermen
and from poor monitoring by Member States.

The main tool for the management of resources at the Community level has been,
until now, Regulation No 1626/94 laying down certain technical measures for the

19

conservation of the fishery resources in the Mediterranean (OJ L 171, 6.7.1994),
which aimed at the harmonisation of the legal provisions of the coastal Member
States. However, implementation of the Regulation has not been satisfactory.

The application and enforcement of minimum landing sizes has encountered
difficulties. The existence of a market for undersized fish, the absence of a tradition
of strong control in some areas of the Mediterranean and a widespread feeling among
fishermen that they have not been sufficiently associated with the decision-making
process have contributed to this situation. Moreover, fleets from third countries are
not subject to the same strict rules.

At the external level, there has been slow progress in multilateral co-operation. There
is a lack of effective monitoring, control and surveillance and lack of scientific
advice based on quality data. If this situation is not improved some parties may be
encouraged to take unilateral measures such as further extension or proclamation of
new fishery zones, which could create severe problems for Community fishermen
and legal complications in Community relations with third countries.

If no action is taken on the issues identified above, the situation of the stocks will
deteriorate. The lack of relevant data to support management decisions, the lack of
effective monitoring and enforcement, the absence of international co-operation with
the bordering States and the increased recourse to unilateral actions would be the
consequences of the Community's inaction.

4.

A SET OF CLEARER OBJECTIVES FOR THE FUTURE

As outlined above, many of the CFP's current problems reside in the variety and lack
of precision of its objectives. The general objectives of the CFP individually
correspond to legitimate goals but
they can be attained only in the long term.
However, the transition towards long term sustainability and viability requires in the
short run corrective measures aimed at restoring fish stocks' productivity. This would
imply lower factor inputs, capital and labour. Such adjustment leading to long-term
benefits should, however, be set against the costs in both the short and long run of
pursuing the present policy.

The Commission strongly believes that the CFP should be made capable of meeting
the challenges facing it through the definition of a clear set of coherent objectives.
The reform debate should also focus on the relative weight to be given to these
objectives, and on the need for clearer political choices where objectives are
mutually incompatible.

The Commission has identified the following objectives for the future CFP. These
are :

• to establish responsible and sustainable fisheries that ensure healthy marine
ecosystems maintaining the quality, diversity and availability of marine resources
and habitats. To that end there is an urgent need to strengthen and improve the
conservation policy in order to reverse the current negative trends of many stocks.

• to contribute, through appropriate fisheries management action, to achieve the
in Article 174 of the Treaty. Appropriate

environmental objectives set out

20

measures to reduce the negative environmental impact of other human activities,
such as maritime transport, oiling and dredging should be envisaged as a
complement to fisheries policy measures.

• to integrate health requirements into the CFP in order to protect public and animal
health and safety and to ensure the stable supply of the European market at prices
reasonable for the consumer.

• to bring fleet capacity into line as soon as possible with the availability and

sustainability of the resources.

• to promote better governance by putting in place more transparent, accountable
and decision-making processes which involve
and flexible management
stakeholders also at the regional and local levels and ensure that emergencies and
conservation problems of a local nature are adequately addressed.

• to ensure effective enforcement of CFP rules through transparent arrangements

which can guarantee a level playing-field across the Union.

• to secure an economically viable and self-sufficient fisheries and aquaculture

sector which can be competitive in a globalised economy.

• to address the problems of structural adjustment

that will

result

from a

commitment to sustainable fisheries.

• to promote the responsible and rational exploitation of fishery resources in
international waters and to develop partnerships with third countries in a manner
coherent with Community development policy.

• to improve the quality and amount of relevant data to support decision-making
and to promote multidisciplinary scientific research which will allow for obtaining
timely and qualitative scientific information and advice on fisheries, associated
ecosystems and relevant environmental factors.

The launching of a public debate on the basis of this Green Paper is the first step
towards achieving these objectives.

5.

THE FUTURE CFP: OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES

5.1.

Strengthening and improving conservation policy

• Implementation of multi-annual and ecosystem-oriented management .

• Adoption of stronger technical measures to protect juveniles and to reduce
discards including pilot projects for measures not applied until now such as
discard bans.

• Development of a system to track progress of the CFP towards sustainable
development and the performance of the management schemes and policies
against stated objectives.

21

• Roll over of the access regime to the 6-12-limit and to the Shetland Box.

Even if there are no panaceas for the conservation problems, the current critical
situation of many stocks makes it more urgent now than ever to apply effectively the
whole panoply of available tools.

The following more specific actions should be envisaged:

5.1.1. Multi-annual, multi-species and ecosystem-oriented management

The need to lay down multi-annual management plans that take the precautionary
principle into account
is now widely accepted. The Commission presented in
December 2000 a Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the
application of the precautionary principle and the multi-annual arrangements for
setting TACs2.

A multi-annual approach should help in avoiding two major disadvantages of the
annual fixing of TACs and quotas: the postponement of difficult decisions for the
future and abrupt changes in the volumes of TACs from one year to the other.

In order to implement a multi-annual approach there is a need to define for a series of
stocks multi-annual strategies which are compatible with the precautionary principle.
Such management strategies will be based on a planned development of fishing
mortalities in the mid-term (3 to 5 years).

The implementation of multi-annual frameworks could be based on existing work
undertaken for the stocks shared with Norway and the Baltic States and should
integrate the precautionary principle. Medium term environmental and ecosystem
objectives and strategies for key species and habitats could also be established
through the introduction of limits on by- and incidental catches, especially for
species listed in environmental legislation.

Mixed fisheries are prevalent
in Community waters and therefore it may be
preferable to manage groups of stocks for well-defined fisheries. The setting-up of a
true effort management regime could be one of the means to approach multi-species
management. Moreover there is a need to further develop an ecosystem-oriented
approach to all areas of fishery management, from resources to consumers in order to
contribute to the achievement of a sustainable exploitation of the marine ecosystems.

In the outermost regions, the state of the resources differs from one region to the
other. This may imply the need for measures tailored to the specific situation of these
regions.

5.1.2.

Technical measures

There is a need to adopt more effective rules. The introduction and promotion of the
use of selectivity devices that reduce or eliminate by-catches of non-target species
and of fishing methods that have a reduced physical impact on the environment
should certainly contribute to improving the current situation. Technical measures
should also better take into account the environmental dimension. For example, the

2

COM(2000) 803 final.

22

closure of a given zone and the exclusion of any fishing activity may be of limited
it can ensure the protection of an
use in terms of fisheries management but
ecologically sensitive and important area for non-target species.

There is also a need to explore the usefulness of measures which have not been
applied until now, such as discard bans in some fisheries which are easy to control
and real-time closures of certain areas. Other possible solutions could also be
explored such as the consideration of a percentage of by-catch species as part of the
TACs, as is done in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO). Pilot
projects along these lines could be easily tried.

Recovery plans to meet urgent situations, such as the one adopted in 2000 for Irish
Sea cod, need in the future to include an important component of specific technical
measures. The notion of stock rebuilding should also be introduced. Stock rebuilding
could be gradual, over a relatively long period for stocks that are in a situation of still
bearable overexploitation. However, stock rebuilding should be much more radical
for stocks that are far outside sustainable levels.

There is a need to open a new debate on technical measures in the light of the
experience acquired through the application of existing legislation, pilot projects and
recovery plans. At the same time there is a need to involve the fishermen in the
formulation of new rules, to facilitate closer links between fishermen and scientists
and to promote further the transparency of the scientific advice.

5.1.3. Monitoring and assessment of the conservation and management framework

There is a need to develop a system to track progress of the CFP towards sustainable
development and the performance of the management schemes and policies against
stated objectives.

Social, environmental and economic indicators, and related reference points need to
be developed that can be used to determine how well these objectives are being
pursued and whether the broader goal of sustainable development is being achieved.

Work by other international organisations such as FAO or bodies like the European
Environmental Agency could be exploited for that purpose.

5.1.4.

Access to waters and resources

5.1.4.1. Relative stability

The principle of relative stability has, since 1983, provided assurances to the
Member States with regard to the share of quotas, thus avoiding annual repetitions of
a political debate on the allocation key, which would have made the decision-making
on TACs even more complicated. The application of the so-called Hague Preferences
has allowed some degree of flexibility to meet a number of specific requests from
certain areas, although such application has not been received favourably by all
Member States and fishermen concerned.

The Commission does not for the time being see any viable alternative principle
which could achieve the same results. The consultation process showed that this view
is widely shared throughout the Community. Therefore, there would be no need for a
radical revision of the existing system.

23

When the structural problems of the fisheries sector have been addressed and the
economic and social situation within the sector has become more stable, it may be
possible to reconsider the need to maintain the relative stability principle and the
possibility of allowing market forces to operate in fisheries as in the rest of the EU
economy.

5.1.4.2. The 6-to-12-mile zone

The basic objectives of the 6-to-12-mile coastal zone regime were to protect fisheries
resources by reserving access to small-scale coastal fisheries activities which in
general put less pressure on stocks in these zones which often harbour nurseries and
to protect the traditional fishing activities of coastal communities, thus helping to
maintain their economic and social fabric.

Taking into account the further decline of most fish stocks and the continuing
difficulties of fisheries-dependent regions to benefit from current economic growth,
these objectives seem to be as relevant today as they were in 1992 and are generally
supported throughout the Community.

Calls for extension of the coastal zone beyond 12 miles in some Member States have
not been supported by verifiable data.

Modification of the 6-to-12-mile regime would disrupt the long-standing balance of
the policy.

5.1.4.3. The Shetland Box and access to the North Sea

The Shetland Box was created because species in this region are biologically
sensitive by reason of their exploitation characteristics. The setting up of the Box
also played an important role in reaching acceptance of the equilibrium established
between the different fleets and fishing communities.

Developments in the stocks in this area do not allow for any increase in fishing effort
and the Commission considers that the current restrictions on fishing activities
improved scientific advice for possible
should be maintained. Nevertheless
adjustments of the regime is required.

The legal restrictions of access to the North Sea waters end on 31 December 2002.
However, as all fisheries for species of commercial interest are regulated by TAC
and quota regimes, access to resources is limited to fleets which hold quotas.
Possible illegal fishing should be closely monitored.

5.2.

Promoting the environmental dimension of the CFP

• Full implementation of the relevant environmental instruments, Action Plans
and Strategies for the protection of the Biodiversity and the integration of
environmental protection requirements into the CFP.

• Launch of a debate on the eco-labelling of fisheries products.

There is a requirement to integrate environmental protection into the CFP. The
forthcoming Communication "Elements of a strategy for
the integration of
environmental protection requirements into the CFP" describes an appropriate

24

strategy to achieve this integration. Although the strategy can be implemented under
the existing CFP, without a need of reform, the Commission believes that it would be
preferable to take advantage of the current CFP review process in order to improve,
by strengthening the appropriate legal basis, the efficiency of such implementation.
The new CFP should be specifically tailored in order to gain efficiency in the
implementation of the above-mentioned strategy.

The Commission also intends to launch a debate on eco-labelling of fisheries
products in the near future. Eco-labelling schemes offer a market- and information-
based method of promoting sustainability in fisheries by presenting clearer choices to
the consumer, based on information about a product’s impact on the environment or
on the sustainability of the fisheries resource from which it is derived.

The Commission supports the objectives of eco-labelling schemes in the fishery
sector, namely to stimulate consumer awareness of the environmental dimension of
fishing and thereby to encourage environmental responsibility of both managers and
fishermen. This forms part of growing interest in making those responsible for
fishing and fisheries management more conscious of its environmental effects.
Hence, voluntary eco-labelling schemes should be encouraged and their operation in
the market facilitated, as complementary measures to legislation, which covers the
exploitation of fisheries resources and food safety. It remains the prime responsibility
of the public authorities to protect natural resources but this is not compromised by
voluntary market-led initiatives.

Eco-labelling schemes should, however, ensure objective and verifiable information
to the consumer and compliance with the claims made must be properly monitored.
There are also a number of difficulties specific to fisheries eco-labels, namely the
implications for non-certified fish which is caught in accordance with the Common
Fisheries Policy, the scientific or technical justification of the criteria used and the
identification of the certified product throughout the marketing chain.

Public authorities may need to establish a legal framework for voluntary eco-
labelling to ensure appropriate assessment criteria,
independent control of
compliance and accurate information for the consumer. Constructive involvement by
public authorities will reinforce the credibility of such schemes and increase the
potential for the beneficial effects of eco-labels to be realised. Public authorities may
want to go further, by setting the assessment criteria to be used by eco-labelling
schemes. The precise level and type of public authority involvement will form the
core of
fisheries products within the
Community.

the future debate on eco-labelling of

5.3.

Promoting animal and public health and safety in the fisheries sector to ensure
consumer protection

• Address the repercussions of the current overhaul of Community food

legislation on fisheries products.

• Ensure consumer protection in respect of third country imports.

A large body of scientific literature confirms the benefits to human health from
eating fish, which is rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids which help prevent
inflammatory and cardiovascular disease and improve vision and neural development

25

in infants. There are, however, certain risks to public health linked to trade,
processing and/or distribution of fish: i.e. contamination by toxic chemicals or heavy
metals, microbiological contamination,
toxic species, presence of parasites,
histamine, etc. Furthermore there is also a risk of introduction and/or dissemination
of animal diseases which may have serious economic consequences for aquaculture.
It is therefore necessary to apply the health requirements of Community legislation in
order to protect public and animal health and safety.

Food quality is a high priority for the Community and fisheries products will be
affected in the immediate future by the current overhaul of Community food
legislation which is designed to establish the highest standards for food. This may
lead, for example, to the establishment of stricter limit values for contaminants, such
as heavy metals or dioxins.

The correct application of Community health requirements will have different effects
on the fisheries sector. One of them will be to reassure European consumers about
the healthiness and safety of fishery products; this could further raise demand for fish
as opposed to other sources of protein. On the other hand, the correct application of
health requirements to fisheries in particularly polluted areas could mean either a
change in fishing activity or, in a few cases, closure of the fishery. This could also
have repercussions on processing industries (including, for example, the fishmeal
and fish oil sector). The need for structural adjustment resulting from the fulfilment
of the Community health requirements will have to be taken into account in Member
States' programmes for assistance to the sector within the framework of the Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

As a major importer of fisheries products the Community must ensure that such
products fulfil equivalent health requirements to those provided by the Community
legislation. More financial assistance may need to be given to developing countries,
and particularly those with which the Community has concluded Fisheries
Agreements, in order to help them achieve the necessary food safety requirements.

5.4.

Fleet policy

• Establishment of a more effective fleet policy in line with multi-annual
objectives, taking into account technological progress and ensuring that public
aid does not contribute to an increase in fishing effort.

• The new system should ensure transparency and simplicity with tighter control
for non-

and enforcement by Member States and stronger
compliance.

sanctions

For the future, a system must be established that is simpler and more effective than
current policy in terms of its impact on the state of the resources. Fleet policy should
establish a balance between fleet capacity and exploitation rates that are consistent
with long-term management objectives. The reduction rates should take into account
the exploitation rates associated with multi-annual TACs. This would have the
advantage of ensuring a coherence between the two areas of policy. However,
although this idea is attractive on theoretical grounds it could prove to be complex to
put into practice, especially for segments operating mixed fisheries.

26

To have an effective fleet policy it should also be recognised that fishing effort is
increasing every year due to technological progress. Advances in vessel and gear
design, fish-finding equipment and telecommunications all contribute to this. The
reduction rates would need to be at least large enough to counter the effect of
technological progress. In over-exploited fisheries they would have to be very much
higher than this. One could also envisage adapting the reduction rates in order to
favour environmentally friendly gears or fishing techniques.

It is also clear that the policy must address the question of over-capacity by Member
State but
it has to distinguish between individual fisheries by maintaining a
segmentation of the fleet, otherwise an overall reduction in capacity might disguise
an increase in the capacity of vessels fishing the most over-exploited species, which
are usually also the most commercially valuable. This could be achieved by the
segmentation under the MAGP IV or, recognising that the latter was in some cases
developed to minimise overall capacity reduction rather than to represent an accurate
subdivision of the fleet, a segmentation based on clearly defined criteria common to
all Member States. In some cases regional segmentation could also be envisaged.

The issue of the distant water fleet needs to be adequately addressed too. The
segments that group together vessels operating outside Community waters should
take into account not only the state of stocks to be exploited but also the other
constraints limiting access, i.e. the fishing possibilities offered by third countries and
the rights obtained in regional fisheries organisations which both risk being
diminished in the long-term due to new entrants.

Another important guiding principle is that public aid must under no circumstances
contribute to an increase in fishing effort. Rather, as long as public aid is used for
fleet renewal there should be a net decrease in fishing effort. In the long term, such
aid should be abandoned.

Finally, special provisions in favour of small-scale fisheries should be envisaged.

Any new policy must meet the requirements described above. The following two
approaches could be used and even combined to achieve the above objectives.

The first is to continue with a system that fixes quantitative objectives to be achieved
over a defined period with the following characteristics:

• Reductions primarily in terms of capacity

• A commonly defined segmentation of the fleet for all Member States

• Fixed reduction rates for each type of segment across all Member States.

In order to achieve the objectives fixed under the programme, the “entry – exit”
regimes that the Member States have introduced under Articles 6 and 9 of Council
Regulation No 2792/99 ("FIFG Implementing Regulation" OJ L 337, 30.12.1999)
could be adjusted so that whenever new capacity is introduced into the fleet a greater
capacity is withdrawn. This system could be made more restrictive when public aid
is granted for vessel construction or modernisation. In this case, the entry of publicly-
aided capacity would be associated with a substantially greater capacity withdrawn.

27

A further means to contain the fleet could be the introduction of a capacity penalty
each time a licence is traded.

The advantages of such a system would be transparency and simplicity. However, it
would require the Member States to accept tighter control and enforcement measures
and stronger sanctions for non-compliance.

The second approach would be to dispense altogether with fixed objectives for the
period until 2006 and instead to create a mechanism whereby the capacity of the fleet
is gradually and automatically reduced over time. This would require the “entry –
exit” regime described above to be strengthened so that it could systematically
reduce the fleet at an appropriate rate, and could also make use of capacity penalties
when licences are traded. One advantage of such a scheme is that the greater the rate
of fleet renewal the greater the rate of fleet reduction, which is consistent with the
need to counter the effects of technological progress. Again, the "entry-exit" ratios
could be adjusted either to take account of the degree of over-exploitation of the
resource or to favour certain types of environmentally friendly gears or fishing
activities.

5.5.

Improving Governance within the CFP

• Establishment of regional advisory committees to involve more effectively the

stakeholders in policy-making.

• Decentralisation of certain management responsibilities to address local and

emergency situations.

• Promoting the transparency of scientific advice.

• Improving the compatibility of the CFP with other policies that affect the

coastal zone through Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

The CFP needs to have a fisheries management framework which is transparent,
cost-effective, flexible, able to respond rapidly and efficiently to emergencies and
allowing greater stakeholder involvement.

Improvements could be made in the following areas:

5.5.1. Greater involvement of stakeholders

institutional

framework does not

Although the current
foresee the formal
participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process, either at Community or
at regional level, it is possible and desirable to foresee new forms of participation in
the pre-decision phase of CFP policy-making. Establishing a network of regional
advisory committees on fisheries could, in the Commission's view, involve more and
earlier the stakeholders in discussions about fisheries management while at the same
time ensuring that fisheries governance remains compatible with the legal and
institutional framework of the Treaty and that it does not affect the global and
Community character of the CFP.

These committees could include national officials, industry representatives, NGOs,
fisheries biologists and economists from the Member States with a real interest in the

28

fisheries concerned. Participation would also be open to industry representatives and
the
officials from other Member States. While some parties might
Commission's presence in every regional meeting might be desirable to provide
chairmanship and administrative support, it might be difficult for the Commission to
assume such a responsibility in every case. It would be necessary therefore for the
players involved to share the management of the proposed scheme.

think that

The regional committees could be co-financed by the Community, national
authorities and stakeholders. It seems reasonable that all parties benefiting from the
participation in the consultations should bear part of the costs.

The regional committees would cover regional management units (such as the North
Sea) or specific stocks to be defined (such as migratory species like tuna) and would
meet regularly. The sector would thus be involved in such discussions before
proposals on management measures were made by the Commission.

These committees would provide advice to the Commission which would take it in
due consideration when making proposals and management decisions.

5.5.2. Meeting local management needs and emergency situations effectively

In order to improve the effectiveness/responsiveness of management measures, the
responsibilities for adopting, within the territorial waters, specific local conservation
measures in some cases could be delegated to the Member States under conditions
defined at Community level. Such new legislation could define the responsibilities of
the Member States and establish the time-limits for such measures and the modalities
for their review. The Commission would retain its right of initiative to adopt
emergency measures.

Another important area where further decentralisation could be useful
is the
management of fisheries within the territorial waters. Member States are currently
allowed to adopt stricter conservation measures in areas under their sovereignty or
jurisdiction provided, inter-alia, that they apply only to fishermen of the Member
State concerned. Member States could in future be empowered to adopt conservation
measures applicable to all vessels operating in those areas. This prerogative would be
limited to the 12-mile zone (or 6-mile zone, depending on the Member State).
Community safeguards should be set up to ensure that Member States would not
discriminate, overtly or covertly, against the fishermen of other Member States and
that measures adopted are compatible with those applicable outside the territorial
waters. This new framework would allow Member States to deal more quickly and
effectively with management
the
reproduction of many stocks and for coastal fishing communities dominated by
small-scale fisheries.

issues which are very important both for

5.5.3.

Better integration of scientific advice into the decision-making process

A sound scientific basis is necessary to assist fisheries managers and other interested
parties in making decisions. The CFP needs advice that is the product of multi-
disciplinary research which covers, inter-alia, biology, ecology, social science and
economics. But apart from the establishment of the appropriate frameworks and
mechanisms to obtain such advice, the policy-makers need to also think about its
optimal use in the decision-making process.

29

Issuing of scientific information in a timely manner and publishing it, respecting
confidentiality where appropriate, would contribute to better decision-making by the
relevant authorities and would increase the confidence of fishermen in it. In addition,
transparency could further be promoted by facilitating closer
links between
fishermen and scientists. The Commission is willing to support initiatives bringing
closer the stakeholders, the scientific community and the policy-makers.

5.5.4.

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)

ICZM is a process for improving the planning and management of costal zones and
for reducing the level of conflicts between fishing communities and other users of the
coastal zone (including both the land and the sea) through the application of a series
of principles embodying good governance. As well as promoting stakeholder
involvement and the adequate use of information, ICZM works towards the co-
ordination of the various sectoral policies which impact on the coastal zone.
Furthermore, the global approach promoted by the ICZM calls for an explicit
examination of the impact of land based activities on marine resources and vice
versa.

ICZM (COM(2000) 00547) the
In the context of the European Strategy for
Commission will work to improve the compatibility of EU policies that affect the
coastal zone, including the Common Fisheries Policy. The ICZM process should also
be used to ensure coherence between the application of the CFP and the many
national and local policies related to the use of the coastal zone.

5.6.

Monitoring, control and enforcement

• Further progress is needed on the co-ordination of national policies,

the
harmonisation of sanctions,
the follow-up of infringements and on the
definition of the respective responsibilities of Member States and Commission
in the implementation of control schemes adopted within regional fisheries
organisations.

• The possibility of setting-up a Community Joint Inspection Structure to co-
ordinate national and Community inspection policies and activities should be
considered as an option.

The CFP reform offers the opportunity to strengthen the current arrangements to
meet the demands of the fishing sector to ensure a level-playing field in control and
enforcement throughout the Community and to provide more effectiveness in the
application of the CFP.

The Commission undertook publicly the following commitments at
the recent
International Conference on Fisheries Control, Monitoring and Surveillance (October
2000, Brussels):

– To elaborate a Code of Conduct for inspectors and fishermen clarifying their

respective rights and obligations.

– To elaborate a prior "controllability evaluation" for every new proposal for

conservation measures.

30

– To establish a "controllability" diagnosis for all measures in force.

– To initiate an analytical assessment of control expenses in order to better evaluate

the real costs of control and the resulting benefits.

– To ensure the largest possible utilisation and exploitation of new technologies for

control purposes.

the harmonisation of penalties for
the admissibility by all Member States of

The Commission believes that further areas where progress is necessary to enhance
monitoring, control and enforcement of CFP could be the co-ordination of national
control policies,
fisheries
regulations,
inspection reports by
Community and national inspectors as a means of proof and transparency in the
follow-up of infringements. Optimum and effective monitoring of the activities of
Community vessels operating outside Community waters should also be ensured. It
is imperative that the Community quickly adopts a position on the division of
responsibilities between the Commission and the national authorities regarding
control of fishing activities in waters managed by regional fisheries organisations
(RFOs).

infringement of

The possibility of setting-up a Community Joint Inspection Structure to co-ordinate
national and Community inspection policies and activity and to pool the means and
resources for control purposes is an option that needs serious consideration. The
tightening of current infringement procedures should also contribute to ensuring a
level-playing field across the Union. A third element in this package would be to
explore ways of
infringement,
including "administrative" penalties such as loss of fishing quota, withdrawal of
financial aid for vessels which infringe fisheries
licences or
regulations.

improving the dissuasiveness of penalties for

repayment of

5.7.

Strengthening the social and economic dimension of the CFP

• A new approach to economic management

to secure a sustainable and
economically viable sector through the reconsideration of the role of public
aid.

• Measures to help former fishermen find alternative employment.

• Exploration of the implications of new management tools such as rights-based

management.

• Reconsideration of the priorities for aid to aquaculture and processing sectors.

In a situation of severe depletion of some of the Community's key fish stocks, over-
capacity and steadily-declining fisheries employment,
the Community needs to
consider a new approach to economic management of the fisheries sector. The
catching sector, in particular, will have to become significantly smaller than it is
today in order to be sustainable and the Community needs to plan for major
structural adjustment. Priorities for aid to the aquaculture and processing sectors also
need to be reconsidered.

31

In general, two kinds of measures are needed: first, those which help to secure a
sustainable and economically viable fisheries sector; second, measures to help those
now employed in the fisheries sector who will need to find alternative employment.
The latter would also need to address ways of overcoming the problem of
transferability of the skills and experience of fishermen to new economic activities.
Some form of transitional assistance during retraining for other employment might
be necessary. The choice of measures should take into account
the "fisheries
dependency" of some coastal regions in relation to small-scale, artisanal fisheries.

With regard to the special case of the outermost regions of the European Union, the
Commission is already committed to bringing forward proposals and, where
appropriate, new measures under the CFP in support of these areas 3.

5.7.1.

A new approach to economic management

Although the present programmes supported by the Structural Funds, including the
FIFG, will be in place until 2006, margins of flexibility exist that could be used in
order to promote a more sustainable and economically self-sufficient fisheries sector
and to strengthen and diversify the economic base of fisheries-dependent areas. A
particular effort should be made to ensure the most effective contribution to
overcoming the over-capacity problem faced by the sector, which is at the root of its
current difficulties.

The reconsideration of current FIFG aid should take place at three levels:

– in the short term, it will be necessary to change some provisions in the FIFG
(Council Regulation No 2792/99) in order to take account of new and unforeseen
events which are already increasing the need for structural adjustment, such as the
introduction of the stock recovery plans recently decided by the Council or the
greater-than-foreseen reduction of fishing opportunities in third country waters.
This may require, for example, a substantial relaxation of the limit on aid for
temporary laying-up of fishing vessels;

– at the same time, in the light of the same developments, the Member States will
probably need to revise their priorities for structural aid to the fishing fleet, by, for
example, reducing the share of aid for modernisation or construction of fishing
vessels and increasing that of aid for decommissioning or laying-up;

– finally, it may be necessary for the Community to consider whether and under
what conditions investment aid for the fishing fleet might be phased out, in order
to eliminate its counter-productive effects on fishing capacity, and Community aid
redirected to focus exclusively on the further
the fleet by
implementing, for example, a "once-and-for-all" aid for decommissioning under
more attractive financial conditions.

reduction of

Because of their importance for employment, in particular in local areas with few
alternative opportunities, and because they have,
if properly managed, a lower
impact on the resources, small-scale artisanal fisheries may need to be excluded from
this general approach. Such fisheries could be the beneficiaries of a specific fisheries
including common
aid programme, subject

to clear conditions for eligibility,

3

COM(2000) 147.

32

definitions of "small-scale" fishing activity and "fisheries-dependency" of a coastal
zone, and limited impact on competition between the Member States' fleets.

Alongside this Community-level reconsideration of aid to capital
investment,
Member States could also make use of the margins of flexibility within existing
regional and human resources programmes supported by the Structural Funds for the
period 2000-2006 in order to reinforce measures to address the social and economic
impact of the inevitable further shrinkage of the Community fishing fleet and to help
those employed in fisheries adapt to change in the sector and, where appropriate, find
alternative employment. Any adjustment would have to be made within the
framework of the existing programmes and financial allocations. In addition, the
mid-term review of Structural Funds foreseen in 2003, and the allocation of the
performance reserve held aside pending the result of the mid-term evaluations, could
be used as an opportunity to address this problem.

As indicated in the Second Cohesion Report4 presented by the Commission, areas
that could benefit from future actions in the framework of cohesion policies include
islands and peripheral regions where the fisheries sector is traditionally an important
part of the economic fabric. In such a context, the FIFG could make an important
contribution in combination with the other Structural Funds.

The Community should also begin to explore the implications of management tools
which are not yet widely used in Europe, such as:

– market-based systems for allocation of quotas, such as individual transferable
quotas and auctions, which generate a market in fishing rights and may increase
the interest of right-holders in long-term sustainability of fishing;

– "co-management" systems;

– access levies for the right to fish, at least for some parts of the Community fleet.

Such mechanisms could, in certain circumstances, play a significant complementary
role in Community fisheries management. The Commission would propose to co-
ordinate an exchange of views with the Member States on these subjects, perhaps
with the participation of third-country experts, where appropriate, with a view to
preparing a report for the other Institutions on this subject as soon as possible and
latest in 2003.

The implications of these new approaches for certain principles such as relative
stability would also have to be considered.

5.7.2. New priorities for support to aquaculture

The relations between aquaculture and the environment are extremely important.
Adoption of sustainable farming practices must be achieved, alongside the
imperatives of health and quality standards for products. The Biodiversity Action
Plan for fisheries and aquaculture should contribute to achieving this goal. The Plan
should foresee a series of actions related to the reduction of environmental impact as
well as actions to limit the potential problems arising from the introduction of new

4

COM(2001) 24.

33

species and secure animal health. These actions need to be supplemented by research
related to aquaculture.

The market has to be the driving force of aquaculture development. Production and
demand are currently finely balanced and any increase in production in excess of the
likely evolution in demand should not be encouraged. In the 1980s, aquaculture (and
more particularly, marine aquaculture) was still essentially a high-risk activity.
Today, these risks no longer exist for a number of farmed species. It is therefore
questionable whether the Community should continue to subsidise investments by
private companies in production capacity for species where the market is close to
saturation.

The intervention of the public authorities in favour of aquaculture should in future
cover measures other than aid to investments that increase production for species
where market is close to saturation, covering expenditure such as training, control,
research and development (in particular for new species), processing of waste water,
eradication of diseases, etc. As from 2000, the scope of the FIFG has been widened,
in order to include the majority of such aid. Public aid should in particular be
devoted to encouraging the development of « clean » technologies.

5.7.3.

Promoting the processing industry

In certain areas, the fish-processing industry constitutes a considerable part of more
selective and local economic activity in particular in terms of jobs. In parallel with
the approach advocated for aid to the fishing fleet, EU policy for the sector should be
more selective and be geographically focused on the basis of economic and social
cohesion policy criteria and could be mainly oriented to support the small and
medium-sized enterprises located in areas most dependent on fishing activities.

Establishing an appropriate strategy for the processing industry is hindered, however,
by the lack of reliable statistical data on the structure, production and economics of
the sector. The Member States are very reluctant to supply such information; the
recently-adopted Council Regulation on the collection of data for the CFP does not
oblige Member States to supply data for the processing industry until 2006.

5.7.4.

Addressing other social issues

Apart from providing sustainable employment in the fisheries sector and assisting in
the conversion of fish workers to other sectors, where necessary, the Community still
needs to address other social issues, such as improving the physical safety of fishing
vessels and regulating working conditions in the sector, including working hours, in
order to minimise safety risks. These considerations also apply to EU fishing vessels
operating outside Community waters, where a significant proportion of the crew may
not be EU citizens. Full compliance with Community legislation on working
conditions should be ensured. The Community is also concerned to ensure that the
substantial role played by women in the fisheries sector is recognised and enhanced.

5.8.

External relations

• Contributing to the improvement of global governance in fisheries related matters
through the effective implementation of the current international legal framework
and the strengthening and promotion of regional co-operation mechanisms.

34

• Development of a partnership approach with the developing countries

The Community's task is to ensure responsible fisheries and to reconcile sometimes
conflicting interests. The Community should only act when there is a real interest for
the Community fisheries sector in particular when there is an effective fleet presence
for the exploitation of fisheries resources, and in order to propose and support
initiatives in the international fora to promote responsible fisheries.

Ensuring access for the Community fleet to surplus stocks in the EEZ of third
countries remains an objective of the Community external fisheries policy. However,
this objective should be achieved in a manner coherent with other objectives, such as,
development and environmental policies and compatible with the fundamental
mission of the CFP, i.e. ensuring the sustainability of fisheries resources. Such an
approach would strengthen the contribution of the Community to the development of
responsible and sustainable fisheries on the high seas and in the waters under the
in accordance with its international
jurisdiction of its partner coastal States,
commitments. It should also be pursued in a manner which encourages mutual
understanding between the interests concerned, including civil society.

In the context of globalisation there is also a European interest in strengthening
economic co-operation between European companies and other private partners in
developing countries. The new external dimension of the CFP has also to take into
account
the policy such as the
implementation of environmental instruments, more effective technical measures,
multi-annual and multi-species approaches, strengthening of research and control and
greater stakeholder involvement.

improvements in the internal dimension of

Finally, investment in the creation and strengthening of the research capacity of
partner countries and regions, particularly where the Union has interests in
sustainable management of aquatic resources and their ecosystems, is a prerequisite
for coherence between different policy areas. It will be necessary to create a structure
providing scientific advice on the state of the resources in partner countries.

5.8.1. Multilateral co-operation

The EC should be leading the efforts of the international community to improve
global governance with respect to the conservation and sustainable use of the marine
living resources of the high seas. The ratification and full implementation of all the
relevant international instruments by the greatest possible number of States must be
strongly encouraged.

Speedy ratification by the Community of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFA)
the
Community can act with credibility in the various international fora.

is necessary so that

The EC should continue to promote international co-operation, to contribute to the
strengthening of the regional fisheries organisations as required by the Law of the
Sea Convention and UNFA and to support efforts to fight illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing on the high seas.

The Community's commitment to sustainable fisheries on the high seas should
the fisheries resources outside
benefit Community fleets which wish to exploit

35

Community waters and at the same time contribute to other objectives, such as those
relating to environmental protection, development co-operation and the protection of
workers' rights.

The Community has also to take account of the interests of emerging and developing
fishing nations through a more equitable distribution of fisheries resources whose
decline not only amplifies the problem but also limits potential solutions.

Certain priorities for
established. These can be summarised as:

the international action of the Community have to be

– promoting, where possible,

regional Fisheries Agreements which have the
advantage of better addressing the regional aspect of the resource, can sustain a
real regional fisheries co-operation between third countries and can facilitate
monitoring and control of fishing activities;

– promoting the rational exploitation of the resources of the high seas, including the
establishment of the rights and obligations of the new entrants, through the
definition of mechanisms for allocation of access rights within the framework of
regional fisheries organisations or arrangements;

– contributing to the application of the precautionary principle, taking into account

environmental protection requirements;

– stepping up the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and in
particular against the laxity shown by the enforcement authorities of some States
towards vessels flying their flags and their own nationals who breach the rules. To
achieve this requires the strengthening of monitoring and control of fishing
activities, not only on the high seas and in the waters of the third countries having
concluded a Fisheries Agreement with the Community, but also in ports. The use
of trade-related measures in the framework of regional fisheries organisations
should also be envisaged in combination with flag State and port State controls;

– giving priority attention to the work of those regional organisations that manage

resources which are shared with the Community;

– fostering co-operation with developing States at the level of regional and sub-
to facilitate and encourage the effective

regional
participation of those States in these organisations.

fisheries organisations,

5.8.2.

Bilateral co-operation

The Community's bilateral relations must be adapted to changing circumstances.
Fisheries Agreements should from now on be able to meet developing States'
requirements and legitimate aspirations to develop their own fisheries.

the Community's bilateral agreements offer better
It should be stressed that
guarantees of responsible fishing than private arrangements. Nonetheless, substantial
progress still has to be made, in particular as regards the implementation of these
Agreements and their capacity to contribute to the development of the fisheries
policies of developing coastal states.

36

For that purpose, the Community's ambition should be to build with partner coastal
States a sustainable fisheries framework where the Community interests have a
positive role to play, including , if possible, fishing opportunities for its vessels.

Community Fisheries Agreements should incorporate the relevant aspects from other
Community policies while becoming the development vector for rational and
responsible utilisation of
the
jurisdiction of developing coastal States. In this respect, the Treaty is clear in that the
CFP has to take into account of the objectives of Community development policy.

the fisheries resources found in waters under

Fisheries Agreements with developing countries should be articulated with the
Development Co-operation Strategies established between the Community and the
third country partner and contribute to the fulfilment of the objectives of such
Strategies. Moreover these Agreements should take into account the diversity which
characterises the situation of the fishing industries in developing countries. In order
to allow for an assessment of value for money the Fisheries Agreement should
clearly separate the fisheries from the development part.

There are political,
institutional and socio-economic differences between the
relationship of the Community with ACP countries and, more generally, with
developing countries, on the one hand, and the Northern and Baltic countries on the
other. This is due mainly to the obvious political, institutional and socio-economic
imbalances. It would be appropriate to establish a dual approach which takes account
of the level of development of our fisheries partners.

The Fisheries Agreements with the Northern and Baltic States have to be the subject
of negotiations with a view to establishing a stable normative framework laying
down the conditions of access on an equitable, and if possible, multi-annual basis
consolidating the presence of the Community fleet in those waters. The extension of
the obligation already existing in a number of agreements, of a financial contribution
by ship-owners benefiting from the fishing rights obtained through agreements
involving Community financial compensation should be examined.

The Community should develop partnership agreements in the fisheries sector with
the developing coastal States with a view to not only ensure for the Community fleet
access to the surplus resources, but also to contribute to the establishment of a
framework for policy dialogue and to responsible and sustainable fisheries. These
should be compatible with the possible development of the sector of the coastal states
and their national fisheries policies and should be based on a contractual and multi-
annual basis. The Cotonou Partnership Agreement
is an important step in the
Community development co-operation policy in relation to the Lome Convention, in
that it identifies new main principles and establishes new priorities in particular with
regard to the reduction of poverty5.

The following more specific actions, already provided for in many existing Fisheries
Agreements, could be extended more widely:

• Strengthening the sectoral policy dialogue by providing technical assistance for
the formulation of sectoral policies, by supporting the creation of professional

5

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Fisheries and
Poverty Reduction, COM(2000) 724 final.

37

organisations, by contributing to the
institutional and
administrative capacities and to the implementation of sound management
practices and by supporting the launching and consolidation of regional and
international co-operation;

strengthening of

• Contribution to responsible fisheries by promoting co-operation in research, stock
assessment, monitoring and surveillance, by stepping up the fight against illegal
fishing, by applying measures to rehabilitate marine ecosystems and to minimise
wasteful practices across the whole fisheries sector;

• Contribution to the sustainable fisheries development of the partner coastal States
by supporting the development and implementation of financial instruments to
meet the various needs of the sector, including within the framework of private
partnerships with Community entrepreneurs; by contributing to the development
of local artisanal fisheries communities and to the improvement of local port
infrastructure; by supporting local human resources development and training -
including possible initiatives for women- and by promoting actions to improve the
safety and quality of local fishery products.

5.9.

Mediterranean fisheries

• Promote the integration of

improvement of scientific advice,
Regulation No 1626/94 and the strengthening of control and enforcement.

the Mediterranean into the CFP through the
the reviewing of the technical measures

• Re-launch the efforts to promote international co-operation.

The analysis of the situation in the Mediterranean Sea shows that it is necessary to
give a new political impetus to the Common Fisheries Policy in this area. The
Mediterranean should be fully integrated into the CFP, with the adjustments
necessary to take account of the specific conditions of fisheries in the area. The basic
objective has to be the same as in other waters: to guarantee the sustainability of
fishing activities in Community waters and on the high seas.

In order to ensure sustainable fisheries, the following aspects must be integrated in a
future Mediterranean fisheries policy:

• rational fishery management needs to be based on sound and timely scientific
advice. The strengthening of
the
Mediterranean (GFCM) and of its subsidiary bodies, in conjunction with the new
Community framework for
the collection of data, will be of paramount
importance in this field;

the General Fisheries Commission for

• Regulation N° 1626/94 should be reviewed in the light of past experience, with a
view to identifying priority areas which require Community-based solutions.
Community action should be focused on those regions where there is most
competition and potential conflicts between fishermen of different origin.
Regional workshops involving the stakeholders as well as specific meetings of the
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries should be arranged
to that end.

38

• due to the multiple use of littoral areas and the particular pressure on coastal
regions in the Mediterranean, there is an increased need to focus on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management as a basic tool not only for the protection and
enhancement of fishing and aquaculture activities but also for their harmonious
integration with environmental concerns and other human uses6;

• control of fishing activities should be strengthened so as to ensure that those
complying with the rules are not penalised by the lack of an effective regime that
allows some fishermen to violate the rules with impunity.

In parallel the Community should also act at the external level:

impetus,

• priority should continue to be given to strengthening multilateral co-operation and
in particular to the improvement of GFCM. In order to provide the necessary
political
the Community should envisage setting up a forum at
ministerial level to provide the political guidelines for a Mediterranean fisheries
policy. Such a forum could take the form of a Conference of the Fisheries
Ministers of bordering States, to be convened periodically. A priority for that
forum would be to discuss the monitoring and control of fishing activities on the
Mediterranean high seas;

• sub-regional co-operation is very important because many problems occur and
their potential solutions can be found only in certain sub-regions. The
development of sub-regional co-operation frameworks should be developed in a
transparent way;

• control of fishing activities on the high seas and, in particular, the question of
fishing activities by non-Mediterranean flag States, merits a multilateral approach
beyond actions taken by GFCM and ICCAT. Given the political dimension of this
problem, the solution could be found in the framework of an ad-hoc Conference
involving all States whose fleets operate in the Mediterranean.

• Fishermen's organisations from all the Mediterranean States should be invited to
create and/or strengthen organisations to promote co-operation. The Community
should encourage and help them in their task.

5.10.

Research and scientific advice

Embeddedness of fisheries resources in their wider ecosystem requires a substantial
effort to apprehend better the functioning of aquatic ecosystems and their reaction to
different types of fishing pressure and exploitation strategies. This would substantially
increase insights into different options of fisheries management in search of a viable
and socially acceptably compromise between the conflicting maximisation objectives
of economic efficiency, ecosystem stability or productivity, employment and
availability for other services.

Such research is interdisciplinary in nature and goes beyond pure instrumental
research for justification of technical measures. It combines conventional fisheries

6

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe, COM(2000) 547.

39

research with conservation science and economics and builds on a considerable body
of knowledge from research on common pool resources. It must maintain an open
channel to fishermen’s own knowledge. It must maintain a degree of independence
from public and private decision-makers in order to safeguard its credibility and
ability to promote consensus building.

Research priorities need also to be better defined. Innovative research is needed in
areas such as selective and environmentally friendly gears, genetics, methodologies
for improved assessment and sampling programmes and sustainable aquaculture
systems.

Largely publicly funded data must be in the public domain and open to independent
analysis. Good science must be able to be proved false and stand up to independent
scrutiny.

Emphasis must be placed on development of innovative analytical methodologies,
which will deliver sufficiently robust
insights into complex socio-economic and
natural ecosystems in cost-effective ways to improve the basis of decision making,
even in countries or regions where costly machineries such as ICES-type assessments
(only of the resource itself) are unrealistic.

6.

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The purpose of the debate launched by this Green Paper is to determine the features
of the new CFP. The characteristics of this new policy should make it capable of
better meeting the challenges it has to face. To achieve this goal, the CFP needs a set
of clear, coherent and compatible objectives and it has to be given the necessary
instruments to achieve them.

As these are questions of fundamental importance, it seems appropriate to have a
thorough debate between all those having an interest in fisheries issues on the basis
of this Green Paper before the Commission submits its formal proposals for a new
CFP by the end of this year.

their comments, views,

All those interested in contributing to this debate are encouraged to send, by 30
remarks to the
September 2001,
Commission which undertakes to analyse them carefully. Contributions can also be
sent by e-mail
to the following address: fisheries-greenpaper@cec.eu.int - The
Commission hopes that the debate will be conducted at all levels and in particular in
the most concerned Community regions.

ideas and critical

The Commission will also organise from the 5th to the 7th of June 2001 a public
hearing on the CFP reform bringing together stakeholders and other interested parties
from all over the Community in order to collect and debate their ideas on the matter.

40