Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation aiming to promote the conversion of vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco"
Date: 2001-10-18
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Morocco, aid system, fishing agreement, fishing fleet, redevelopment aid, structural policy

C 36/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation aiming
to promote the conversion of vessels and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the
fishing agreement with Morocco’

(2002/C 36/08)

On 7 September 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Mun˜ iz Guardado as rapporteur-general for
its opinion.

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 18 October), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 49 votes to one with two abstentions.

The Committee endorses the Commission proposal subject to
the following comments.

— the special measures under consideration for the conver-
sion of vessels and fishermen should serve as a model
for other situations which may arise in the future in
connection with EU fisheries agreements.

1. General comments

2. Specific comments

1.1.
The document’s explanatory memorandum sets out
the reasons for the proposed regulation, but there is a lack of
detailed discussion in the following areas:

2.1.

Introduction

— non-renewal of the agreement between the European
Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, the EU’s most
important fisheries agreement, which entails the loss of
‘historic’ fishing grounds for the Community fleet, with
social as well as economic repercussions;

2.1.1.
The reasoning set out in the preamble is correct,
putting the proposed regulation on a proper basis; however,
the appropriations for early retirement or
in recital
retraining for fishermen should have been increased given the
special features of this conversion.

(8),

— it is considered vital for the draft regulation to include
specific action on diversification in all
the relevant
regions. Although only three Spanish regions are men-
tioned as being specifically affected, others are affected
the Alentejo region (port of
indirectly:
Sesimbra) and the Algarve region (port of Olha˜o) and in
Spain, the autonomous region of Valencia and the city of
Ceuta are also affected by the conversion in question;

in Portugal,

— the Committee feels that specific intervention for the
regions affected ought
to have been included in a
reconversion process on such a large scale and with
such major consequences for both fishermen and vessel
owners, as well as for all the sectors directly and indirectly
affected (processors, shipyards etc.);

— the memorandum acknowledges that a significant num-
ber of fishermen will be unable to find places on other
vessels; however, the aid earmarked for them under
Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (Article 12) has not been
increased. This is discriminatory, since an increase has
been proposed for vessel owners, which is not mentioned
in the memorandum but is set out in the text of the draft
regulation (Article 2);

Similarly, recital

2.1.2.
(11) should have introduced a
specific intervention for diversification in the coastal areas
most affected by the non-renewal of the agreement.

2.1.3.
The Economic and Social Committee urges the
Commission to bear in mind the comments made on this
question in the opinion under preparation on consultations
regarding reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

2.2. Title I — General

2.2.1. A r t i c l e 1

Paragraph 1 lays down that a nine-month temporary cessation
of activity is required to qualify for exceptional measures, but
does not explain the reasons for setting this period. The
Committee considers that the period discriminates against
fishermen and vessel owners who re-start their activity (often
on a temporary basis, and in a way which saves the EU and

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/45

the Member States concerned money, since they have received
no aid), when their situation may be no different from other
fishermen and owners.

2.4. Title III — Specific measure

2.3. Title II — Derogation measures

2.3.1. A r t i c l e 2

Article 2(1)(a)(i) establishes that the scales referred
2.3.1.1.
to in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 are
increased by 20 %. An increase of 30 or 40 % more would
have been preferable, given the special circumstances of the
conversion, and the fact that in paragraph 1(c)(ii) provision is
made for a 30 % increase.

2.4.1. A r t i c l e 3

2.4.1.1.
nature are included in paragraph 2(b)(iii).

No increases for measures of a socio-economic

2.4.1.2.
Paragraph 3 gives an approximate breakdown of
40 % for scrapping or permanent reassignment of vessels,
28 % for permanent transfer or modernisation of vessels, and
32 % for socio-economic measures.

2.4.1.3. Within the limits of what is currently possible, it
must be ensured that the largest budget appropriation is
directed to maintaining activity through vessel modernisation:
for this purpose, it is important that the EU conclude new
fishery agreements, seek new fishing-grounds etc.

Paragraph 1(b)(iii) reduces the minimum age of
2.3.1.2.
the vessels referred to in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 2792/1999 to five years, from the original 10 years. The
reduction is a step in the right direction, but derogations could
have been allowed to eliminate or further reduce the age
period.

2.4.2. A r t i c l e 4

2.3.1.3.
It must be borne in mind that vessels have been
built recently for fishing in Moroccan waters, whereas these
fishing grounds are now closed. Each Member State affected
will have to relocate these units if no easy export outlet is
found.

Paragraph 1(d)

2.4.2.1.
indicates that the provisions of
Regulation 2792/1999 apply unchanged with regard to the
maximum amount of the premium for a fisherman or a given
vessel. However, fishermen should be entitled to an increase in
the aid scales, in line with the increases granted to enterprises
in Article 2(1)(a)(i) and (b)(i).

2.3.1.4.
The second page of the proposal’s explanatory
memorandum contains a section under the heading ‘Dero-
gation measures’, the second paragraph of which states that it
is necessary to facilitate permanent cessation in the form of
transfers to third countries ‘whatever the age of the vessel’; at
the end of the section of the memorandum entitled ‘Specific
action’, a percentage distribution of funds for each measure is
proposed (not more than 28 % for the export of vessels).

2.4.2.2.
Paragraph 2 lays down that in the case of the
granting of a premium for the creation of a joint enterprise,
the applicant must provide proof that a bank guarantee for an
amount equal to 40 % of the premium has been lodged. This
does nothing to facilitate the creation of such enterprises since,
quite apart from the financial cost involved in lodging a bank
guarantee,
it is not the most appropriate requirement for
exceptional cases of this kind.

2.3.1.5.
This distribution must be flexible enough to enable
the special case of exports of new vessels to be covered by
the regulation; besides, as acknowledged in the explanatory
memorandum, the age of the vessel is not an essential criterion
of eligibility for the specific action.

2.4.2.3.
Paragraph 3 establishes that aid for modernisation
is to remain subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Regulation
(EC) No 2792/1999. The version of Article 9 contained in the
draft regulation to amend Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 —
on which the Committee is also drafting an opinion (1) —
proposes that vessels of any segment in a Member State in
which a single fleet segment fails to comply with the objectives
should not receive aid.

2.3.1.6.
Paragraph 1(c) provides that fishing gear may be
replaced in the event of conversion to another fishing activity;
this can be the subject of public aid, on increased scales, and
without the requirement of a minimum period following
modernisation work. This is to be welcomed.

(1) OJ C 311, 7.11.2001, p. 3.

C 36/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

2.4.2.4.
Although unlikely, the possible failure of another
segment to comply with the CFP objectives in the countries
affected by the agreement with Morocco should have no
impact on this specific Morocco-related measure.

2.4.2.5.
The aid for fishermen under paragraph 3 is not
granted on equal terms, when compared with the increases
planned for vessel owners.

2.4.3. A r t i c l e 5

It ought to be ensured in this article that the
2.4.3.1.
regulation governing the procedure for the payment of aid is
flexible, and that the dates are brought forward as far as
possible, since the vast majority of vessels are at present not
working and the aid they currently receive will end on
31 December 2001. Special procedures to ensure there is no
delay in payments are therefore vital.

Brussels, 18 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 Directive
2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms
harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community’

(2002/C 36/09)

On 24 April 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 unanimously on 27 September
2001. The rapporteur was Mr Jaschick.

At its 385th plenary session (meeting of 17 October 2001) the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion with 78 votes in favour and three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. Comments

International trade in plants and plant products is on the
increase, bringing with it
the risk of spreading harmful
organisms. Hence it is particularly important to harmonise
protective measures within the EU. In particular the Com-
mission is proposing measures aimed at cooperation between
plant health bodies and customs authorities and at uniform
fees. Basically the Committee regards a revision of Directive
2000/29/EC as necessary and welcomes it, but would draw
attention to the following comments, which should help to
improve the proposed directive.

The Committee welcomes the fact that the definitions
2.1.
contained in the directive (e.g. ‘office of departure’, ‘office of
destination’, ‘transit’) have as far as possible been brought into
line with those in the customs code. Cooperation with the
customs authorities on such matters as transit consignments
or the import/export of wooden packaging (1) makes harmon-
isation absolutely essential.

The deliberate import of harmful organisms for scien-
2.2.
tific purposes — e.g. for research at universities — must be
subject to authorisation. No such system exists at present.

(1) COM(2001) 183 final, Article 1(2).