Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector"
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Community fisheries, common fisheries policy, conservation of resources, fishery management, structural policy

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/51

4.2.
The ESC therefore considers that, as part of the reform
of the CMO for sheepmeat and goatmeat, the fixed premiums
proposed by the Commission should be increased, with a
corresponding increase in the budget, to reflect the current
situation in the sector and to encourage producers to continue
in this line of work. Hence they should receive a level of
compensation that reflects their role in society.

4.3.
In addition, a safety net which automatically compen-
sates producers for loss of income when a crisis occurs should
be set up and included in the Council regulation, since the
vulnerability of this sector in a crisis situation could lead to
the loss of many activities in the rural world with grave
repercussions.

Brussels, 17 October 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements
regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector’

(2002/C 36/11)

On 27 June 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37
of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 2001. The
rapporteur was Mr Mun˜ iz Guardado.

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 17 October), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 79 votes in favour and seven abstentions.

The Committee is able to endorse the Commission proposal,
subject to the comments which follow. These comments also
concern the proposed amendment to Decision 97/413/EC
contained in the same Commission document.

1. Comments on the proposed decision

1.3.
The amendment to Article 3 of Decision 97/413 will
be particularly damaging for the small-scale fleet. This article
applies to vessels of less than 12 metres overall, other than
trawlers. For this category, the increase in capacity does not
represent an actual increase in fishing effort, as the aim is to
improve such important aspects as accommodation con-
ditions, safety, seaworthiness, on-board conditions for han-
dling fish, and compliance with international obligations.

The amendment to the decision is designed to prolong
1.1.
the fourth generation of multiannual guidance programmes
(MAGP IV). It does not establish new measures for Member
States which fail to comply with the MAGP, although such
measures are included in the proposed regulation (amendment
to Article 9).

1.2.
The amendment extends the MAGP IV by a further
year but also establishes new percentages in relation to the
reduction targets which were set
for a four-year period
[Article (1)(1)(b)].

2. Comments on the proposed regulation

2.1.
The third ‘whereas’ clause of the proposed regulation
contains an unfortunate modification which may be detrimen-
tal to the small-scale coastal
fishing fleet, given that the
seventh ‘whereas’ clause of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999
acknowledged the important fact that:

‘small-scale coastal fishing has a special status in terms of the
objectives for fishing effort adjustments; it is important that

C 36/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

this specificity is translated into concrete measures at the level
of this Regulation (1)’.

2.1.1.
these
Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 set out
measures in more detail in Article 6(2) on fleet renewal and
modernisation of fishing vessels and Article 7(4) on adjustment
of fishing effort.

The fourth ‘whereas’ clause of the proposed regulation
2.2.
stipulates that public aid should not be made available for the
permanent transfer of fishing vessels to certain third countries.

2.2.1. When deciding which third countries this should
concern, it is important to bear in mind the point made by the
ESC in its opinion (2) on Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999.

2.3. Article 1

2.3.1.
that the MAGP IV is to be extended by one year.

Point (1): The proposed alteration is correct, given

2.3.2.
Point (2): Article 6(2) should not be deleted as this
would be particularly damaging for the small-scale coastal
fishing fleet (see point 2.1 above). It must be remembered that
Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 contains specific
measures for this fleet, which is deemed to comprise vessels of
an overall length of less than 12 metres. The Green Paper on
the future of the Common Fisheries Policy (3) also calls for the
adoption of special provisions in favour of small-scale fisheries.

Point (3) adds a new indent to Article 7(3)(b), but
2.3.3.
still does not clearly specify the relationship with third
countries. The Committee would therefore once again reiterate
the comments made in the abovementioned opinion and ask
the Commission to periodically issue a list of these countries.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(2) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999. The opinion stated that ‘it should be the
task of the Commission to draw up the list of third countries to
which vessels can be transferred, in the interests of uniformity.
Alternatively, the Commission should lay down criteria enabling
the Member States to identify countries to which vessels may not
be exported.’ (General comments, point 3.1.2.1). The opinion
went on to say that ‘it should be the task of the Commission to
provide, for all Member States, a list of third countries where the
definitive transfer of vessels would not qualify for public aid, or a
list of third countries where this exclusion would not apply’.
(General comments, point 3.1.2.2.1).

(3) COM(2001) 135 final.

2.3.4.
Point (4) amends Article 9(1) and introduces the
requirement that the annual objectives must be respected in all
segments of the MAGP, without prejudice to the fleet conver-
sion measures contained in the recent fisheries agreement with
Morocco. The Commission should reconsider the need for
such a drastic measure and take more time to assess the matter.
A well-organised fleet segment which respects the objectives
might find itself penalised if other segments do not do likewise,
as the vessels of the compliant segment will also be denied the
opportunity to receive aid.

2.3.4.1.
The proposed new Article 9(1)(a) makes the basic
criterion a reduction in capacity, and not a reduction in
activity. However, in the vast majority of cases, an increase in
capacity should not be viewed as an increase in fishing effort
but rather as a modernisation measure which directly benefits
vessel safety and accommodation conditions (improvement in
on-board conditions for handling the fish, compliance with
international standards, etc.).

2.3.4.2.
The new Article 9(1)(b) and (c) should retain the
exception laid down in Articles 6(2) and 7(4) of Regulation
(EC) No 2792/1999, as it is important to consider:

— the comments made in the ESC opinion (4) on Regulation

(EC) No 2792/1999, which stated that:

‘An analysis of fleet renewal trends in recent years shows
that a vessel now needs more GT [gross tonnage] than
those withdrawn in order to fish as competitively, have
the space needed to meet international standards, and
improve conditions for handling the fish on board.

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

— the fact that in focusing solely on a reduction in
capacity rather than in activity, the new provisions may
penalise those segments which have reorganised their
fisheries by introducing controls on fishing hours or
establishing closed seasons or quotas, rather than by
reducing the number of vessels.

(5):

The

Point

2.3.5.
to
Article 10(1)(d) is correct, although it still does not specify any
new measures for those Member States which fail to comply
with their MAGP, other than the requirement to comply with

amendment

proposed

(4) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999 (points 2.4.1 and 2.4.2).

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/53

annual objectives ‘in all the segments’. Although this might be
an important step, it could adversely affect compliant fleets.

2.3.6.
Point (6), which amends Article 16(2), should explain
more clearly why a Council Decision is to be replaced by
‘Community legislation’.

Brussels, 17 October 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the
elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational’

(2002/C 36/12)

On 19 April 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 September
2001. The rapporteur was Mr Byrne.

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 17 October 2001), the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 88 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The Commission published its proposals for a draft
1.1.
directive on the activities of
institutions for occupational
retirement provision in October 2000 (1). The Committee
adopted its opinion on the proposed directive in March
2001 (2).

This communication deals with the tax aspects of
1.2.
cross-border occupational pension provision which are not
covered in the draft directive.

2. Background

2.1.
Pensions are of universal concern but particularly to
individual EU citizens who want adequate provision for their
retirement. Pensions in the Community are provided under
three pillars:

(1) COM(2000) 507 final.
(2) OJ C 155 , 29.5.2001, p. 26.

— Pillar 1: Social security schemes set up on a statutory
basis whether managed by the State, the contributors or
otherwise (generally pay as you go).

— Pillar 2: Occupational (funded) schemes (generally tied to

the employer).

— Pillar 3: Individual schemes (generally with life-assurance

companies).

2.2.
The proposed pensions directive and this communi-
cation are both focused on the matters which need to be dealt
with in relation to the cross-border provision of Pillar 2
schemes although the proposals particularly in relation to tax
would also be generally relevant to Pillar 3 arrangements as
well.

The reason the directive did not deal with the taxation
2.3.
taxation must be decided by unanimity.
aspects is that
Including tax in the directive is likely to have delayed or
aborted its adoption.