Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Commission Communication Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy"
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU publication, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks

C 107/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Commission Communication “Green Paper on
the future of the Common Fisheries Policy”’

(2002/C 107/15)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission communication Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries
Policy (COM(2001) 135 final);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 22 March 2001, under Article 265(1) of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its president on 10 May 2001 to instruct Commission 2 —
Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries — to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, especially Articles 33, 34, 153 and
174;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 2 on 3 July 2001 (CdR 153/2001 rev. —
rapporteurs: Mr von Plüskow, State-Secretary in the Ministry for Rural Areas, Agriculture, Food and
Tourism of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein, D/PSE, and Mr van Gelder, Queen’s Commissioner for the
Province of Zeeland, NL/PPE),

adopted the following opinion at its 41st plenary session on 14 and 15 November 2001 (meeting of
14 November).

Whereas

Fisheries and its upstream and downstream sectors are
1.
of central importance, not least for coastal regions. This applies
in the first place to income generation and employment —
factors which, to varying degrees, are of decisive importance
for peripheral areas especially. Secondly, fisheries are a key
element of these areas’ cultural identity. While it is true that,
apart from tourism, there is often little interplay in most areas
between fisheries and other industries, the social and economic
importance of the sector in a number of coastal regions is
much greater than its percentage share of gross national
product would seem to indicate.

3.
The Committee notes that the Common Fisheries Policy
has in essence failed to achieve its objectives. In particular, it
has failed to secure the sustainable use of fishery resources and
to improve fishermen’s living standards. The Committee
therefore feels that, after twenty years, a fundamental review
of the Common Fisheries Policy is both overdue and urgent.

4. Moreover, new challenges — particularly forthcoming
EU enlargement, increasing globalisation and the need to take
adequate account of developing countries’ legitimate interests
— also require a radical repositioning of European fisheries
policy.

2.
The Committee of the Regions is concerned about the
precarious economic plight of some parts of the Community
fisheries sector, which, in the regions concerned, is a result of
inadequate conservation policy (to the extent that some stocks
are at risk of collapse), overcapacity in some fleet segments
and the rapid rise in costs in the wake of oil price increases.
The fishing sector’s failure to adapt adequately to changing
circumstances also plays a part. Consequently, in some fishing
segments, many regional enterprises are not sufficiently profit-
able, the incomes of fishermen and their families are signally
inadequate and employment figures are falling. Aid for capital
investment may have intensified the problem of overcapacity,
low profitability and replacement of labour by capital in the
catching sector, while other economic sectors offer safer and
better-paid jobs.

Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions greatly welcomes the
1.
Commission green paper, which presents an unsparing analysis
of the present situation and, proceeding from that, sets out
observations and approaches for fundamental reform.

In view of the failure of the current CFP management system,
the Committee calls for a scientific analysis of alternative
management systems that are consistent with the EU inte-
gration process. Such an analysis is not found in the green
paper.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/45

In this context, the Committee calls on the Commission to
undertake to include in the final document that will provide
the basis for the Council decision, at least an assessment of
the green paper by the Scientific, Technical and Economic
Committee for Fisheries (STECF), of Community co-manage-
ment systems and, more particularly, of the proposal for a
system of Community individual fishing rights.

The Committee urges further integrated research — focusing
on biology, technology, ecology and social and economic
aspects — in order to underpin the policies to be pursued. The
quality of data collection in this field must also be improved.

2.
The Committee shares the basic principles of a Common
Fisheries Policy set out in the Commission green paper and
backs the plan to prioritise these objectives more clearly. These
priorities must be based on the above-mentioned integrated
research.

It is essential to set a priority objective to enable the broad
outline of the management model of the future CFP to be
established. If the present lack of definition continues, if the
incompatibility of CFP objectives is not dealt with, and if
declarations of intent stand in for practical proposals, then the
current review process will have failed.

3.
In assessing the present situation, the Committee also
shares the Commission’s assumptions of what would happen
if the current Common Fisheries Policy were to continue
unchanged.

4. With regard to the Commission’s options and preferences
for a future fisheries policy, the Committee would make the
following recommendations, confining itself for the moment
to basic comments.

Strengthening and improving conservation policy

The Committee welcomes Commission moves towards
5.
multi-annual, multi-species and ecosystem-oriented manage-
ment underpinned by integrated research. However, given the
highly complex issues involved, the Committee feels that the
rules must be as simple as possible so that they can be
administered effectively and are acceptable to fishermen. The
Committee is very pleased that the Commission intends to be
particularly alive to the specific situation of the outermost
regions.

6. With regard to technical measures, the Committee shares
the Commission’s view that more effective rules are needed
than those currently in place. Effective by-catch arrangements
are in particular essential. The Committee also endorses the
Commission’s call for multi-annual stock rebuilding measures.

The Committee feels that a central plank of strengthening
resource conservation policy is a reduction in industrial
fisheries, i.e. fishing to produce products such as fish meal and
fish oil. As long as world-wide demand grows and resources
continue to fall, it is essential to rethink the scale of industrial
fisheries. The Committee trusts therefore that the Commission
will study the matter carefully — also in the light of scientific
recommendations — and then put forward specific proposals
for reducing industrial fisheries.

The Committee notes that some drift nets, such as those used
in tuna fishing and other floating drift nets, harm the marine
ecosystem.
therefore advocates their total prohibition,
especially as there are alternative ways of catching these species
which are entirely selective and environmentally friendly.

It

7.
The Committee notes the Commission’s view that, until
the economic and social situation within the fisheries sector
has become more stable, there is in essence still no real
alternative to the principle of relative stability, under which
individual quotas are laid down on the basis of a specific
allocation key. Nevertheless, it is advisable to examine whether,
in order to achieve an economically and socially healthy
fisheries sector in the EU, there are not grounds for a re-think
of the principle of relative stability through the effect of the
market mechanism — if this is a genuine option.

However, seeing that the allocation key was established in
1981 prior to the accession of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Sweden,
Finland and Austria, it should be updated to take account of
the vital needs of local communities currently dependent on
fishing.

8.
The Committee therefore very much backs the Com-
mission’s plan to retain the current special arrangement under
which the 6-to-12-mile coastal zone is reserved for small-scale
coastal fishing. It also supports the maintenance of special
rules for the particularly sensitive areas of the Shetland Box
and the North Sea.

The Committee notes the Commission’s attempt to introduce
market-based systems for allocation of quotas and access levies
for fishing rights, points out however that there is a risk
that operations will become concentrated on large fishing
enterprises to the detriment of medium-sized and artisanal
fisheries, with adverse effects for the coastal regions concerned,
if no safeguard measures are taken.

C 107/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

Promoting the environmental dimension of the CFP

9.
The Committee of the Regions is pleased that, in the
interests of safeguarding fisheries, ecosystems and product
quality, the environmental dimension is to be more closely
integrated into the CFP (see Commission communication
Elements of a strategy for the integration of environmental
protection requirements into the CFP). It is vital to cover
all negative environmental
including
maritime transport, oiling, dredging, port construction, land
reclamation and the building of tidal power stations and wind-
powered generators. The Committee would however expressly
warn against catch-all solutions; on the contrary, application
of these ground rules should be tailored to the particular
the individual regions
circumstances and organisation of
concerned, so that the arrangements in place are geared to the
highly diverse range of maritime ecosystems.

impacts on fisheries,

10.
The Committee also feels that the introduction of a
fisheries eco-label is an appropriate means of building public
support
this sector. Eco-labelling could also be an
important tool in fostering and underpinning environmental
awareness and quality consciousness among fishermen them-
selves.

for

Certification of responsible fishery activities is one of the most
promising fisheries management instruments, and should be
looked at urgently. The CoR urges the Commission to set up a
public certification body under the control of the Community
institutions.

Consumer protection

11.
The Committee joins the Commission in highlighting
the nutritive benefits of fish and fish products. However,
these products,
like others, may undoubtedly also contain
contaminants and pollutants that pose a risk to health. It is
thus essential that the Community’s legal health requirements
should also apply in this field. This includes the establishment
of limit values for contaminants.

The Committee would strongly highlight the need for
12.
such a rigorous approach, since this is the only way to
guarantee the necessary consumer confidence in the safety of
fish and fish products. The recent BSE crisis in the beef sector
has demonstrated the potentially catastrophic impact of loss
of consumer confidence on certain products and hence, often,
on entire regions.

13.
At the same time, however, the Committee would stress
that these ground rules, which apply to Community producers,
must apply equally to imports of non-EC produce, particularly
since the Community is highly dependent on imports from
non-member countries.

Fleet policy

14.1.
The Committee agrees with the Commission assess-
ment that the common fleet policy to date has failed to
meet its objectives effectively and, in particular, has had no
discernible positive impact on the state of resources.
In
principle, therefore, the Committee backs the Commission’s
objective of implementing a more effective fleet policy which
establishes a balance between fishing capacity and exploitation
rates. To that end, any investigation of vessels’ fishing capacity
must include criteria which also take account of technological
progress. Future arrangements must also be more long-term.
Similarly, the Committee backs Commission plans for simpler,
more transparent rules than those in place to date — thus
making them more acceptable to fishermen — and for the
introduction of more effective monitoring and control by
Member States and stronger sanctions for non-compliance.

14.2.
The Committee is aware that the issue of a new fleet
policy is among the most tricky in the entire reform agenda.
The decisions to be taken thus require careful examination,
drawing on scientific opinion and involving the economic
sectors concerned. Poorly prepared decisions lead to mistakes
which may have serious economic consequences for the
regions concerned. The Committee therefore calls on the
Commission to do everything necessary to ensure sound,
timely decision-making. Catch-all arrangements must be avoid-
ed, and, to secure the requisite flexibility, it will be increasingly
necessary to take specific action tailored to particular circum-
stances and to the fleet segment and region concerned.

To ascertain the future impact of the various measures adopted
by the EU in the regions and localities dependent on fishing,
the Committee considers that a detailed study must be carried
out of the sector in these regions, covering the operational
fleet together with the industrial and commercial fabric, the
services sector, the demographic and social structure, with a
view to assessing the impact on these structures and make
provision beforehand for
the necessary socio-economic
measures.

A good example here of an outstandingly effective measure
for limiting fish catches out of necessity is the ‘sea days’ rule,
combined with a co-management system, such as has been
developed for the fisheries sector in the Netherlands.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/47

this examination,

14.3. Whatever the outcome of
the
Committee is emphatically opposed to any disproportionate
reduction for fishing vessels newly incorporated into the fleet.
In most fishing enterprises, fishermen have vessels suited to
their type of fishing and these cannot be replaced by smaller
or lower-powered vessels without jeopardising the viability of
the enterprise and safety (from the economic, nautical and
technical angles and in terms of catches). For the same reasons,
the Committee cannot accept the introduction of a capacity
penalty each time a licence is traded. The Committee rejects
any automatic procedure without a case-by-case examination.
Given the advanced age of many ships, particularly in the
Mediterranean (where the average trawler is over 25 years old),
state aid must be maintained to secure replacement with
equivalent capacity fleet.

tation. This can be done via producers’ organisations as
specified under market organisation policy. Such organisations
are deemed eminently suited to pursue a kind of co-manage-
ment. Stakeholders can then become an integral part of policy
and share responsibility for it.

15.2.
The Committee particularly welcomes the Com-
mission’s plans to delegate, under certain conditions, specific
local conservation measures to the Member States. A decentral-
ised arrangement such as thus would (i) take account of the
subsidiarity principle and (ii) secure a speedy approach tailor-
made to individual situations.

14.4.
The Committee would underline that the purpose of
the necessary fleet restructuring in the EU — and the inevitable
fleet reduction involved — must be to secure a modern core
fleet. Failure to meet this objective would make fleet renewal
impossible and rule out ongoing technological development
within the fishing fleet. The Committee therefore calls on the
Commission to come up with solutions which involve more
than just updating the old MAGP. The Committee feels that
back-up must be provided for this painful adjustment process,
through support measures such as temporary, Community-
funded decommissioning and social compensation payments.
These payments must not, however, contribute to retaining
overcapacity in structurally disadvantaged sectors and must
therefore be for a limited period only.

14.5.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s readi-
ness to provide derogations for small-scale fishing activity so
as not to jeopardise its survival.

14.6.
In order to implement the new structural policy, the
Committee considers it essential to retain the FIFG with a view
to achieving a profitable, competitive European fleet in line
with the productivity of the fish stocks to which it has access.
The recent efforts of each region to reduce and adjust fleets,
together with the regeneration potential of the stocks in each
segment, must be key factors in determining approaches to
this objective.

Better governance in the Common Fisheries Policy

Application of the principle of subsidiarity within each Mem-
ber State, making it possible for the regions to participate in
decision-making, would facilitate management for them and
give them co-responsibility for developing and applying the
fisheries conservation policy, under conditions similar to those
under the Structural Funds.

15.3.
The Committee also strongly supports the Com-
mission’s proposal whereby conservation measures adopted
by Member States which are stricter than those provided
by the Community should henceforth be applicable to all
fishermen, not just those from the Member States concerned.
The Commission should give fundamental consideration to
how far these measures can be extended — in terms of both
of duration and the area they cover — without infringing the
principle of non-discrimination. Naturally, scientific advice
should be an effective part of the decision-making process and
account should be taken of the planning and management of
coastal zones via ICZM.

Monitoring, control and enforcement

The Committee backs the Commission view that
16.1.
further progress is needed in the co-ordination of national
policies and the strengthening and harmonisation of sanctions
in case of infringements. Sanctions — harmonised as far as
possible — are central to demonstrating that Member States
and the Community are serious about the essential task of
conserving resources. As the Commission notes, these should
also include drastic sanctions such as loss of fishing quota or
the withdrawal of licences.

15.1.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s efforts
to establish rules as part of the reform agenda that are
transparent, cost-effective and flexible, and make it possible to
respond to emergencies. Key strategies here include greater
stakeholder involvement in decision-making and implemen-

At all events the European Commission will have to provide
for the inspection and monitoring measures needed to ensure
that fisheries rules are adhered to uniformly in all regions. It
would be advisable to harmonise the dissuasive and penal
measures laid down by the different Member States.

C 107/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

16.2.
The Committee feels that after the Member States’
controls and sanctions policies have been harmonised, the way
lies clear for a European fisheries inspectorate. Despite the
Member States’ undeniable capacity to carry out such a policy
nationally, such a body will help bring about equal treatment
of everyone involved and allay fishermen’s suspicions. Such an
approach could well be the best guarantee of support for any
new measures from the stakeholders concerned.

That said, the Committee feels that the Commission must step
up efforts to make the rules as easy and as straightforward as
possible to monitor.

Structural Fund programmes will enable local/regional auth-
orities and development agencies to implement future strategi-
es that add value, promote economic development and create
jobs in the long-term interest and well-being of
fishing-
dependent communities.

17.3.
Given the extremely complex rules involved, this vital
part of the new reform agenda requires extensive and sound
technical and scientific examination. Rash political decisions
may be counter-productive to the common objective of this
long-term basis for
reform, namely to establish a strong,
conserving fishery resources, and to safeguard the incomes of
the parties concerned. The Committee therefore urges the
Commission to pursue its policy in line with the objectives of
the Community Treaties — and its own objectives — and to
put forward proposals accordingly.

17.4.
Committee would make the following basic points:

On this chapter of the Commission document, the

Strengthening the social and economic dimension of the
CFP

— It welcomes the Commission’s aim of developing a

healthy and profitable fisheries sector.

The Committee feels that this aspect is crucial to the
17.1.
new Common Fisheries Policy and thus requires special
consideration. Clearly, this package of measures is indisputably
linked to the new fleet and conservation policy. The key issue
is how far the EU is prepared in future to continue its
financial commitment to promoting the fishing industry. The
Commission’s idea is evidently to cut back considerably on
Community support for this sector, to discontinue support all
together for fleet modernisation and to focus on measures
such as scrapping and laying up periods. Also, fisheries policy
is to include more market-based elements than at present.

The Committee of

17.2.
the Regions understands the
Commission’s desire to make the current — and largely
inefficient — machinery for promoting fleet structure more
effective. The Committee supports this stance wholeheartedly,
but
increase in the
lead to a fundamental
Community fishing capacity.

it must not

Additionally, the Commission should actively encourage Mem-
ber States to use fully all socio-economic instruments available
to them through the Community Structural Funds, namely the
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and Objectives 1,
2 and 3. These programmes require adequate national co-
finance to ensure that EU financial allocations are to be drawn
down to the full benefit of fisheries communities in ALL
Member States over the period of the programme. The CoR
these multi-annual
targeted effectively,
is convinced that,

— It welcomes the Commission’s intention of taking special
steps to help disadvantaged areas with no economic
alternatives.

— It urges that financial support be given to research and
projects designed to boost fishing sector efficiency by
cutting costs, modifying fishing techniques, etc.

— It calls for moves to help improve both on-board living

and working conditions and product quality.

— It rejects any interference with current EU Structural
Funds programming (including FIFG), which runs until
2006, aimed at a drastic cut in funding for the modernis-
ation and construction of fishing vessels.

— It also rejects the proposal to provide aid in principle

only to fund fleet reduction.

The Committee would reiterate the essential need to maintain
a modern core fleet.

17.5.
The CoR calls on the Commission to present a study
of alternative proposals for management based on regulated
market systems, and co-management systems, and their poss-
ible socio-economic repercussions for the management of
Community fisheries. This study should accompany the Com-
mission proposal to the Council for the review of the CFP.

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/49

Support to aquaculture

18.1.
The Committee shares the Commission’s view that
environmental protection is particularly important in the field
of aquaculture. However, the Committee cannot agree with
the Commission that, in future, the market alone has to be the
driving force of aquaculture development. The Commission’s
ideas on this subject do not reflect reality, given the growing
gap between supply and demand in the fisheries sector — and
thus the EU’s particular dependency on outside imports. What
is more, aquaculture offers a genuine alternative to the sources
of income and jobs that will disappear as a result of fishing
sector reorganisation.

18.2.
The Committee of the Regions thus advocates support
to aquaculture in terms of both investment and aid, particularly
for so-called ‘clean’ technologies, in order to effectively counter
the environmental pressures that undoubtedly exist. Attention
is directed in particular at evaluating the scope for combining
aquaculture and fisheries as is done in sea-ranching.

and the state of fish stocks — and the fleets fishing them — in
non-EC waters. In so doing the Community principles of
sustainability, precaution and environmental protection should
be taken into account.

The Committee recommends that stakeholders from the
Member States be involved in the negotiations with non-EC
countries.

20.2.
Independently of that, given insufficient resources in
Community waters and the need to scale back the EU’s own
fleets, the Commission must seek fisheries agreements with
non-member countries in order also to safeguard the future
prospects of Community fisheries. Fisheries agreements should
be able to meet developing states’ requirements and legitimate
aspirations to develop their own fisheries sector.

Processing industry

Mediterranean fisheries

19.1.
The Commission rightly notes that the processing
industry has, in the same way as trade, a key role to play in the
local economy and provides most of the jobs in the fisheries
sector. The Committee also basically endorses the Com-
mission’s view that support in this field should be focused on
small and medium-sized enterprises in the most dependent
areas. However, this principle must not mean that all other
enterprises are automatically excluded from support.

19.2.
The Committee notes that safeguarding the viability
and competitiveness of the fisheries sector is approached in a
fairly one-sided manner by focusing on fishing and fishing
fleet overcapacity. Safeguarding sustainable and diverse fishe-
ries also means that the processing industry and trade should
assume a greater share of responsibility than hitherto in
implementing the environmental protection objectives set for
fish stocks and maritime ecosystems. Thus, in the context of
advancing the CFP’s market policy, it is important to note that
measures relating to the possible introduction of eco-labels
should be targeted at the entire chain of fisheries sector
activities from fishing to trade.

21.1.
The Committee welcomes the particular attention
given by the Commission to Mediterranean fisheries and its
proposal for a special package of measures for these regions.
The Committee would stress that the special arrangements to
help regions particularly affected by problems in the fisheries
sector (see previous sections of the reform agenda) do not go
far enough to resolve the difficulties arising from the particular
circumstances of Mediterranean areas. The Committee of the
Regions also shares the Commission’s view that the requisite
action should be focused in the first instance on those regions
where there is most competition — and thus a particularly
strong potential for conflict — between fishermen of different
origins. Integrated coastal zone management can also play a
key role here, given the particular pressure on Mediterranean
coastal regions because of factors such as tourism.

21.2.
Any effective moves to replenish the (in some cases)
dramatically depleted fish stocks must involve extending CFP
rules to the Mediterranean region as well and also include
efficient monitoring and control machinery.

External relations

20.1.
Like the Commission, the Committee is aware of the
Community’s global responsibility and of the need to manage
fish stocks in all the oceans of the world. It is indeed advisable
to strike a balance between the needs of the Community fleet

Regional pilot schemes such as the FAO-AdriaMed project are
helping to boost multilateral international cooperation. This
project, which involves Albania, Croatia, Italy and Slovenia, is
based in Termoli (Italy) and is designed to increase scientific
cooperation in the evaluation and management of Adriatic
fishery resources.

C 107/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

The draft international Adriatic fisheries agreement between
the EU and Adriatic third countries, recently promoted by the
Italian Government and Parliament, is a natural and welcome
development of AdriaMed. The draft, which is based on the
indications emerging from the Montego Bay Convention,
provides for the establishment of an international fisheries
authority for the Adriatic. In accordance with CFP principles
and regulations, and with the FAO code of conduct for
responsible fisheries, this authority would oversee the safe-
guarding, promotion and sustainable exploitation of Adriatic
fishery resources, on the basis of standardised integrated
regulation of fishing activity.

21.3.
Given the particular circumstances of Mediterranean
fisheries, the major shortcomings in resource management
and the resultant need to adopt a range of new fisheries rules,
the Committee supports the Commission’s proposal for special
arrangements such as a forum of all fisheries ministers of the
Mediterranean countries;
its terms of reference would in
particular cover the monitoring and control of fishing activities
in international waters in the Mediterranean and better,
transparent sub-regional cooperation in this area.

Brussels, 14 November 2001.

Summary

To sum up, the Committee notes that the Com-
22.1.
mission’s green paper is a sound basis for discussion of the
requisite reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. It therefore
welcomes the Commission initiative. However, the Committee
would also stress that decisions on key issue such as conser-
vation measures, fleet structure and Community support to
help secure a better future for European fisheries must be
grounded in further integrated research. Only then will the
Council have a solid basis for decision-making. The Committee
calls on the Council of Ministers to allow itself to be guided in
its political decision-making — more so than in the past — by
fundamental scientific recommendations. The earnest involve-
ment of the stakeholders concerned will do much to build
support for the necessary reforms.

22.2.
In conclusion, the Committee would stress the need
for special schemes for regions particularly dependent on
fisheries and for small-scale fisheries, with due consideration
being given to the concerns of the fisheries sector and, in
particular, those of small-scale coastal fishermen working in
the Mediterranean.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT