Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy"
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, common fisheries policy, fishing regulations

C 36/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

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

(2002/C 36/07)

On 22 March 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Green Paper on the future of the
Common Fisheries Policy.

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

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 17 October), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 129 votes in favour with five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. General comments

The Green Paper on the future of

1.1.
the Common
Fisheries Policy is designed to launch a wide debate among all
Community bodies, members of the fisheries sector, and the
many other organisations concerned about the sector’s future.
The Green Paper can provide a valuable basis for dialogue with
a view to assessing the situation and possibly securing a
consensus on measures and goals for the development of the
sector in the short term.

1.2.
This important sector is in a highly vulnerable position,
being weakened by the depletion of stocks, the steady erosion
of employment, and the bleak outlook for some regions which
are heavily dependent on fisheries and are faced with a fraying
social fabric and no viable alternatives for reviving the local
economy.

1.3.
The sector’s current structural, social, regional and
political problems stem from a variety of factors: the rapidly
changing circumstances of the sector itself, inadequate appli-
cation of existing legislative instruments, and unbridled exploi-
tation of resources. These problems are of concern to us all.

1.4.
The revision of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
provides an opportunity that must not be wasted. The Member
States and the Commission must have the political courage to
grasp the attendant challenges and tackle the resistance which
always appears, but also to put forward balanced measures
that have been decided in a dialogue with the sector. In
particular, these measures must provide the support needed to
cushion any socio-economic consequences.

1.5.
The Committee regrets that the Green Paper does
not fully address important topics such as aquaculture, the
common market in fishery products and illegal fishing. The
Commission must be sure to tackle these topics when it comes
to draw up formal proposals.

The Committee is pleased that the Green Paper stresses
2.1.
the basic principles which, according to the Treaty, should
guide the CFP. These are: to increase productivity, to ensure a
fair standard of living for the fishing community, to promote
technical progress and to ensure that supplies reach consumers
at reasonable prices.

2.1.1.
The Committee therefore considers that the set of
objectives listed in chapter 4 of the Green Paper supplement
the basic principles enshrined in the Treaty. One of the major
challenges of the reform is to reach a compromise between
these principles, the current situation of resources and the
need to minimise the socio-economic consequences of the
necessary reforms, whilst respecting the overall objective of
fisheries policy as enshrined in the FAO’s Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries.

2.1.1.1.
The Commission’s review of the current objectives
of the CFP completely overlooks the social aspects. These
aspects should be a constant concern in both short and long
term analyses.

2.1.2.
Fishing cannot be treated solely from an economic
viewpoint because, as the Committee noted in a previous
opinion (1),
‘for the regions concerned, the importance of
fisheries and all ancillary activities, both upstream and down-
stream, extends far beyond their contribution to GDP. Fishing
constitutes a hub around which a whole series of communities
revolve, and these play a key role in maintaining social balance
and ensuring regional management; this role is difficult to
quantify in economic terms’. This is particularly true in the
outermost regions. Accordingly, and in keeping with the
arguments put forward by the Committee, the Commission
should offer these regions greater support in the form of
practical measures.

(1) Additional own-initiative Opinion on the Common Fisheries

Policy (OJ C 139, 11.5.2001).

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/37

2.2. Resource conservation

2.2.1.
The vital need to conserve fishery resources was
enshrined in Community law at a very early stage. This
principle has top priority in the Community’s resource man-
agement system. The CFP has thus been an essentially positive
factor in that it has improved the organisation and regulation
of fishing activities. The continuing problems and dissatis-
faction felt by some of the sector’s main players do not call
into question the usefulness of this important common policy.

2.2.2.
As the Committee has frequently noted for many
years (1), the sustainability of fishing activities and the future
of many fishing communities depend on the political will to
address the current overfishing and depletion of stocks.
Broadly speaking, the current situation has been brought about
not by an absence of appropriate legal instruments, but by the
fact that they have not been applied properly. The Committee
therefore duly notes the Green Paper’s recognition of short-
comings in the application of the battery of instruments
available under the CFP, and the fact that — for reasons which
are unclear — instruments have been not applied at all, or
have been applied insufficiently. Although the Council has
recognised that the overexploitation of resources is unsustaina-
ble, it has not accepted some of the Commission proposals
warning it about this situation.

The Committee agrees that conservation policy needs
2.2.3.
to be tightened up and improved by deploying all
the
instruments available, such as multiannual and multispecies
management and the full range of technical measures. The
Committee has already noted that in the field of technical
measures,
‘there is still scope for progress if there is the
political will and support for research geared to improving the
selectivity of fishing tackle, for example’ (2). The Green Paper
is now suggesting the deployment of some measures that have
not been applied or have been underused. This raises the
question of why, if such provisions already exist, they were
not exploited in the past.

2.2.3.1.
A clearer picture is also needed of the real scale of
‘recreational’ fishing, as in some cases the scale of this exceeds
what would normally be considered a simple leisure activity.
Member States should be called upon to manage fisheries
possibilities in this sector.

2.2.3.2.
The Committee supports and recommends a more
detailed analysis, backed by scientific advice, of the outlawing
of discards where feasible, of striving to minimise by-catches,
and of making use of closed seasons and closed areas. The
Committee agrees that a responsible, sustainable conservation
policy requires a precautionary approach based on rigorous
scientific recommendations. It must then be up to the decision-
makers/managers to adopt measures on the basis of the
information available. Special care must be taken to avoid
disruptions which require drastic measures such as the current
ban on cod and hake fishing in the North Sea, as such measures
have serious socio-economic consequences.

The Committee reiterates the view expressed in an
2.2.3.3.
earlier opinion on fish not used for human consumption.
Although fish used for meal are essentially from less commer-
cially prized species, this sector inevitably has an impact on
the food chain of other species and this impact should be
assessed.

2.2.4.
The Committee supports the proposal for a system
to track the CFP’s progress towards sustainable development,
and the performance of the management schemes and policies
already in place, as a way of rectifying the abovementioned
shortcomings.

2.2.5.
As regards access to fishing grounds and stocks, the
Committee reiterates its previously expressed views (2) on the
principle of relative stability and access to the North Sea and
the Shetland Box. The access restrictions in the North Sea for
the Spanish, Finnish, Portuguese and Swedish fleets are to be
lifted on 31 December 2002. However, as species of commer-
cial interest are already subject to TACs and quotas, this right
of access is purely formal. With a view to future enlargement(s),
care must be taken to ensure that new Member States do not
enjoy a more favourable regime than current Member States.

(1) Opinion on 2002: The Common Fisheries Policy and the fisheries
situation in the European Union (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000), and
additional own-initiative opinion on the Common Fisheries Policy
(OJ C 139, 11.5.2001).

(2) See point 2.7.1 of ESC opinion CES 244/2001 (OJ C 139,

11.5.2001).

2.2.5.1.
The 6 to 12-mile limit is a key issue in the reform
of the CFP, and the Committee reiterates its view that access
the current
should continue to be restricted and/or that
derogation should be made permanent or extended for a
considerable period.

C 36/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

2.2.6.
As fishery resources are renewable natural resources,
fishing rights should be accorded to the Member States and
they should be left to adopt their own management system for
using and distributing quotas.

systems. A standard eco-label has not yet been devised, and
the Committee considers that in the case of fishery products
this label could include information about the fishing area,
date of catch, fishing licence number, type of gear used, and
so on.

Although the Commission has not submitted an
2.2.7.
official proposal on the matter, the Committee does not
agree with the introduction of individual transferable quotas
managed directly by the Commission and granted to fishermen
without involving the Member States, as part of a market-
based system involving payments for fishing rights. The
institutionalisation of such a system would concentrate fishing
rights in large businesses, spelling the end of smallscale
fisheries and small and medium-sized enterprises. It would
also mean disaster for communities in some regions which
depend on fisheries.

2.4. Animal health, public health and food safety

2.4.1.
On no account must the sector neglect efforts to
ensure the quality of the final product in all senses. The current
overhaul of Community legislation on foodstuffs will raise
standards and introduce new requirements.

2.3.

Environmental aspects

The market demands stricter quality standards, and
2.4.2.
the Community must see that these standards are respected by
all.

2.3.1.
The Green Paper acknowledges that fisheries depend
on biological conditions which are heavily influenced by
environmental
factors, and that environmental protection
must be made an integral part of the CFP. However it does not
specify how this is to be done, and merely states that a future
communication will consider ‘elements of a strategy for the
integration of environmental protection requirements into the
Common Fisheries Policy’. It is not clear how this strategy is
to be applied, or how the Community authorities and the
Member States are to acquire the resources to stop people
treating the sea as a dumping ground for all kinds of pollutants.

2.3.1.1.
A truly integrated policy requires the adoption and
implementation of a policy for the management of coastal
areas. The Committee supports the efforts being made to
implement a European strategy for coastal zone management;
this strategy should also address the concerns of the fisheries
sector. Here too it is important to ensure that human activities
do not disrupt the environmental balance.

2.3.2. Will
the ‘polluter-pays’ principle be effectively
applied, with compensation for injured parties? This is an
important aspect for the credibility of the CFP in terms of
public health and market confidence. Compensatory mechan-
isms should also be considered for those who invest in
environmental improvements.

2.3.3.
The development of eco-labelling could provide
consumers with a useful guarantee that a product is whole-
some, has been caught according to the rules, and meets food
safety standards. However, as this scheme is not yet sufficiently
advanced, caution is needed regarding those aspects which
extend beyond good fishing practice and respect for eco-

2.4.3.
The Community’s goal of improving the quality and
safety of fishery products will rest on a number of factors: on
concern for water quality, so as to avoid possible pollution; on
the good condition and conservation of fish, both during
catching operations and subsequently; and on application of
high health and safety standards. All these are intrinsic aspects
of a policy of quality and safety for fishery products, which are
prized for their dietary properties and their beneficial role in
preventing cardiovascular diseases.

2.5.

Fleet

2.5.1.
Analysis of the current situation confirms that the
Community fleet is too large. The Committee agrees with the
Commission that existing fleet adjustment policies should
continue, subject to any alterations that are necessary to
respond to recent developments.

Fleet adjustment measures should continue to be
2.5.1.1.
handled via the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGPs).
The programmes must be revised on the basis of a case-by-
case analysis that takes account of the efforts and situation in
each Member State as regards achievement of the MAGP
targets. Any further reduction must take the objectives set
previously as their starting point, and efforts to meet these
objectives must continue before setting any new reduction
targets. The possibility of introducing stiffer penalties for non-
compliance should also be considered, particularly now that
the Commission has proposed extending the current MAGP
for a further year.

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/39

2.5.2.
However, as the Committee noted in an earlier
opinion, fleet reduction measures should not lose sight of ‘the
need to continue to renew and modernise the Community’s
fleet. There should be a firm commitment to achieving high-
quality conditions for processing the raw material, improving
the quality of life on board, and enhancing safety for crews’.

2.5.3.
The Committee regrets that the Green Paper does
not consider this problem when discussing a new policy for
the Community fleet. Fishing is one of the most dangerous
activities in Europe and in the world, with the highest incidence
of industrial accidents. Here the Committee would refer to the
comments made in an earlier opinion (1) and underscore those
made in its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation amending
Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 (2).

2.6. Governance of the CFP

2.6.1.
The Committee is pleased to note that the Com-
mission intends to involve interested parties more closely in
the debate and to let the sector share the responsibility
for decision-making and management at
level. The
Committee has called for such steps in many earlier opinions.
In this context, the Committee also supports the moves to
decentralise responsibilities by giving Member States a greater
role in the adoption and management of conservation
measures. However, care must be taken to ensure that decisions
taken in the EU’s name by one Member State are applied to all
and do not discriminate against fishermen from other Member
States.

local

The establishment of new forums for institutional
2.6.1.1.
dialogue, such as regional advisory committees, would also
provide a means of involving the sector more closely, thereby
improving effectiveness.

2.6.1.2.
At the same time, an assessment is needed of why
the current system does not function (advisory committee on
fisheries and aquaculture). This might show — not for the first
time — that the system is not obsolete but that its operation
simply needs adjusting so as to meet the purpose for which it
was created.

2.6.1.3.
The Committee suggests that the establishment of
regional committees be based on the main European fisheries
areas and that it be consistent with the ICES (3) geographical
divisions.

2.6.2.
The Committee has always argued that it is vitally
important that proposed amendments to the CFP and pro-
posals for the TACs should be based on rigorous scientific
advice. The future European Food Authority could play a
coordinating role here. For many years now, the Committee’s
opinions have noted that conservation policy must be support-
ed by advances in scientific knowledge and by technological
development.

2.6.3.
To note — as the Green Paper does twenty years
after the establishment of the CFP — that there are significant
gaps and weaknesses in the scientific advice and information
available, does little to give credibility to the (sometimes
difficult) decisions taken hitherto under the CFP.

2.6.4.
Strong support for boosting scientific back-up in the
EU fisheries field is vital. It will be interesting to see how
Member States’ financial effort is distributed here.

2.7. Monitoring and controls

As the Committee stated in an earlier opinion (4), ‘the
2.7.1.
monitoring of regulated activities is the key to securing a
suitable resource conservation policy’. There will be no
substantive progress on the CFP until robust steps are taken to
strengthen the Commission’s powers of inspection, and until
the disparities between Member States’ sanctions systems
are ironed out. The Commission’s suggestions regarding
‘controllability evaluations’, better use of new technologies and
harmonisation of sanctions echo long-standing calls from the
Committee, and the Committee therefore supports them.

The Committee regrets that the Commission has not
2.7.2.
yet clarified the objectives of the Joint Inspection Structure or
its intended operation and sphere of activity.

2.7.3.
The Committee urges the Commission to put forward
proposals for extending monitoring and control policy to
illegal fishing and vessels flying flags of convenience. The
whole of the fisheries sector should have a clear position on
this and should not associate itself with it either directly or
indirectly. The Committee thus welcomes [subject to adoption
of the relevant ESC opinion] the Commission’s proposal (5) to
alter Regulation (EC) 2792/1999 (MAGP IV) so as to ‘prohibit

(1) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 322 final — 2001/0129 CNS.
(3) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

(4) See point 2.7.1 of ESC opinion CES 244/2001 (OJ C 139 of

11.5.2001).

(5) COM(2001) 322 final.

C 36/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

the granting of public aid for the transfer of vessels to third
countries that have been identified by the relevant fisheries
organisations as countries that permit fishing in a manner
which jeopardises the effectiveness of international conser-
vation measures.’.

2.8.3.
The Committee considers that the new management
approach proposed by the Commission is too geared towards
the problem of excess installed capacity (which is a genuine
problem) and to incentives for withdrawals and support for
fishermen seeking other economic activities, although this is
important too.

2.8. The social and economic dimension of the CFP

Adjustments to any sectoral policy — and in this
2.8.1.
case, to the CFP — will not produce the desired results and
may have serious adverse effects if they are not backed by
careful studies and analyses that consider the situation in all
Member States.

The Commission proposes that the small-scale
2.8.1.1.
inshore fishing fleet (which plays the most obvious social role
and which is the backbone of local economies and coastal
areas) should receive special treatment, along with the outer-
most regions.

2.8.1.2.
The Committee endorses this. However, a clear and
transparent definition of small-scale fisheries will be needed in
order to avoid distortions of competition.

2.8.1.3.
In areas which are particularly dependent on
fisheries, special attention must be given to investment in
alternative sectors. The second report on economic and social
cohesion, adopted in January 2001, noted that in the period
1990-1997 the regions in which dependency has risen are
those where development is lagging behind.

2.8.2.
The Committee reiterates a view expressed in an
earlier opinion regarding structural measures for dealing with
‘Efforts should
the excess capacity of the Community fleet:
continue, without losing sight of the need to continue to
renew and modernise the Community’s fleet. There should be
a firm commitment to achieving high-quality conditions for
processing the raw material, improving the quality of life on
board, and enhancing safety for crews. The concept of capacity
should be redefined so that instead of only taking into account
total fleet tonnage and engine power, a distinction can be
drawn between an active capacity which generates fishing
effort and a passive capacity which does not have any impact
on this. Such a step would do much to improve safety and
living conditions on board’.

2.8.4.
However, whilst the review of FIFG aid must not
overlook the need to modernise the Community fleet, an
integrated and coherent policy can only call for the ending of
construction and modernisation aid for those fleet segments
or Member States which have incontrovertibly failed to meet
the targets set in the MAGPs.

An indiscriminate reduction that did not take account
2.8.5.
of existing programmes for managing capacity (the MAGPs)
could hit less problematic segments or particularly fisheries-
dependent regions, and could even eliminate production
capacity that is essential to the fabric of the sector. It could
also discriminate against Member States which have met the
targets set by the Commission and even,
in some cases,
exceeded them.

2.8.6.
The same is true of aid for aquaculture. It is inaccurate
to state — as the Commission does — that production and
demand for all farmed species are currently balanced, as the
situation varies from Member State to Member State. The
proven reduction in wild species and the increased demand for
fish products, in view of their health benefits, show that the
Commission is mistaken, at least as regards some species and
regions. FIFG aid should take account of the real situation in
each Member State.

2.8.7.
Sustainable management of fisheries will naturally
benefit the sector. A reduction in manpower and in the
number of working vessels will boost the productivity of those
who remain in the sector and help improve fisheries resource
management. However, the fact that there is excess capacity in
some countries does not necessarily mean that there is a
similar surplus of workers. Some Member States actually face
a labour shortage.

2.8.8.
There should be an active social policy to back up
the restructuring that is going to be necessary and the sacrifices
that will have to be agreed to in all Member States in order to
bring the size of fishing fleets into line with current levels of
fishery resources. Socio-economic measures will be needed to

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/41

cushion the effects of decommissioning and of fishermen
leaving the sector, but steps will also have to be taken to train
new, younger fishermen to replace those who take early
retirement, as the long-term sustainability of the sector also
depends on timely training for newcomers.

2.8.8.1.
It will also be necessary to invest in the vocational
training of those currently working in the sector. This training
should focus primarily on safety and on fishing techniques but
should also cover other topics which can equip fishermen with
skills that make them less dependent on fishing in the strict
sense of the term, so as to prepare them for alternative or
supplementary activities.

2.8.8.2.
The PESCA programme was not a great practical
success. Nonetheless, the Committee thinks it important to
continue to have a specific instrument for social policy in the
sector. Spreading this support over other wider programmes
makes access to it more complicated for those working in the
sector.

2.8.9.
The measures to be submitted by the Commission
must extend beyond reducing fishing capacity and helping
those currently working in the sector to find alternative
employment. At all events, it is difficult to share the Com-
mission’s conviction that the answer lies in retraining surplus
workers, as the age and skills of some may make it difficult for
them to adjust to another job even if they are helped through
the transition.

2.8.9.1.
Other possible forms of assistance have not
received the attention they deserve. For example, management
of the number of fishing days and transposition of the directive
on working time at sea could provide effective management
tools, enabling the fishermen concerned to continue to work.

2.8.10.
The recent crisis sparked by the sharp increase in
fuel prices also highlighted the need to rethink some of the
remuneration systems in the fisheries sector, as these can
deter new entrants and hamper efforts to manage resources
sustainably.
In some widely used remuneration systems,
increases in fuel costs are directly factored into pay; this
seriously affects the income of many fishermen, thus provok-
ing an increase in fishing effort.

2.8.11.
The Committee has long called for social measures
to remedy this situation, on the grounds that the sustainability
of the sector — and hence of many regions of the EU — also
depends on decent working conditions and a skilled, well paid
workforce. The institutionalisation of a guaranteed minimum
wage for the sector could help not only to guarantee fishermen
a decent standard of living but also to ease the pressure on
stocks. Although this does not fall within the direct remit of
the Commission, but is rather a matter for the social partners,
the Commission could conduct an information campaign to
encourage the partners to act.

2.9.

External relations

2.9.1.
This is an important strand of the CFP which cannot
be taken out of context, as the Green Paper seems to do. The
overarching aim of this policy strand is to give EU fishing
fleets access to resources outside their own waters, with a view
to reducing the EU’s deficit in fishery products and ensuring
balance on the internal market whilst not neglecting the
legitimate interests of our partners in third countries. Future
fisheries agreements must continue to abide by these prin-
ciples, or they will not come about.

2.9.2.
Access is granted by means of commercial agree-
ments which may include other aspects of Community
development policy. The Council has reaffirmed the need to
boost the EU’s international activity in the fisheries field on a
number of occasions.

2.9.3.
the CFP must be upheld.

The principles underpinning the external strand of

2.9.4.
The Committee does not favour a dual approach
to international agreements. The various types of fisheries
agreement must all be guided by the same principles. Different
or specific arrangements are only justified if they reflect actual
practical differences.

The agreements with the ACP countries should be
2.9.5.
retained and strengthened, as these are necessary for the EU
and are an important development factor for the signatory
countries and have a crucial socio-economic impact on them.

2.9.6.
The Committee also welcomes the Commission’s
move to hold talks with the social partners on the inclusion in
fisheries agreements of a social clause to ensure compliance
with a series of standards and principles as established by the
ILO.

C 36/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

2.9.7.
The Commission makes appropriate suggestions for
boosting multilateral cooperation and the important role
played by the EU. Full support should be given to these efforts,
including those to strengthen the role of regional fisheries
organisations in combating certain undesirable practices which
threaten the sustainability of fisheries and the future of the
sector.

2.10. The Mediterranean and the CFP

The Committee agrees with the Commission that
2.10.1.
further efforts are needed to fully integrate the Mediterranean
into the CFP by improving or adapting the relevant legislation.
The special arrangements for this region have played a part in
the depletion of stocks and should be carefully reviewed with
a view to gradually bringing them into line the arrangements
for other Community areas.

2.10.2. Mindful of the fact that a common legal framework
will make for more balanced and rational exploitation of
Mediterranean fisheries, the Committee hopes that appropriate
legislative measures will soon be adopted. This is vital for the
survival of the socio-economic fabric and coastal communities
concerned.

2.10.3.
If the measures adopted in this region by the
Member States are to be effective, the EU must also prevail on
the other Mediterranean countries to follow the same path.
Some steps are being taken in this direction (e.g.
in the
Adriatic), but the practice should be extended to the rest of the
Mediterranean as any EU measures would be quite ineffective
if they were not followed by the other countries in the
region. Special attention should be paid to vessels from
non-Mediterranean third countries, whose activities often go
unchecked.

2.11.

Sustainable management of the CFP

2.11.1.
The future of the CFP will depend to a large extent
on the means and resources bestowed on the Commission, the
Member States and the sector for conducting this important
common policy successfully.

Both now and, more importantly, in the future, the
2.11.2.
CFP must be consistent with the Community’s other policies
such as its environmental, trade and development aid policies.

2.11.3.
The relevant budgetary allocations must also be
commensurate with needs and aspirations, and with the EU’s
international responsibilities.

3. Conclusions

Whilst welcoming all the positive elements put forward in the
Green Paper, the Committee wishes to underline the following
aspects which merit further elaboration:

— concrete political commitment to remedy the short-
comings in the application of the battery of instruments
available under the CFP;

— the Commission’s forthcoming proposals should also
consider aquaculture, the common organisation of the
fisheries market and the fight against illegal fishing;

— particular attention must be paid to the special circum-
stances of the small-scale fisheries sector and the Com-
munity’s outlying regions;

— the possibility of outlawing discards where feasible, of
striving to minimise by-catches, and of making use of
closed seasons and closed areas should be examined;

— the 6 to 12-mile limit is a key issue in the reform of the
CFP, and access should continue to be restricted and/or
the current derogation should be made permanent or
extended for a considerable period; EU enlargement
should be taken into account in this respect;

— the Committee disagrees with the introduction of the
system of individual transferable quotas and the introduc-
tion of any approach based exclusively on market orient-
ed measures;

— recreational fishing should be subject to strict manage-
ment by Member States in accordance with EU legislation;

— the integration of environmental factors when managing
the CFP is still quite unclear; the questions of coastal zone
management, compensation of injured parties and eco-
labelling are certain examples of ambiguity;

— the market demands stricter food quality standards,
and the Community must see that these standards are
respected by all, ensuring improvement of water quality,
good condition and conservation of fish, and application
of high health and safety standards; rigorous scientific
advice should be sought by suitable EU bodies; the
fishmeal question should be seriously addressed;

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/43

— fleet adjustment measures should continue to be handled
via MAGPs, only when positive results are confirmed;
the possibility of introducing stiffer penalties for non-
compliance should also be considered;

— there should be a firm commitment to achieving high-
quality conditions for processing the raw material,
improving the quality of life on board, and enhancing
safety for crews;

— in respect to governance, care must be taken to ensure
horizontal and balanced implementation of EU rules; the
establishment of regional committees should be based on

Brussels, 17 October 2001.

the main European fisheries areas and it should be
consistent with the ICES geographical divisions;

— there will be no substantive progress on the CFP until
robust steps are taken to strengthen the Commission’s
powers of inspection, and until the disparities between
Member States’ sanctions systems are ironed out; the
Committee regrets that the Commission has not yet
clarified the objectives of the Joint Inspection Structure;
the Committee urges the Commission to put forward
proposals for extending monitoring and control policy to
illegal fishing and vessels flying flags of convenience;
— a clear and transparent definition of small-scale fisheries
will be needed in order to avoid distortions of competition;
— socio-economic measures such as vocational training,
investment in alternative employment sectors, manage-
ment of the number of fishing days and transposition of
the directive on working time at sea could provide
effective management tools; the institutionalisation of a
guaranteed minimum wage for the sector could help not
only to guarantee fishermen a decent standard of living
but also to ease the pressure on stocks;

— the Committee does not favour a dual approach to
international fisheries agreements, and the CFP must be
consistent with the Community’s other policies such as
its environmental, trade and development aid policies.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS