Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Commission Communication on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (Roadmap)" (COM(2002) 181 final)
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing fleet, international waters

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/87

3.14.
The development of information systems is a laudable
aim. In developing information systems, attention needs to be
paid to improving the availability of information and systems
should be expanded to include e.g. exchange of information
and experience on best practice. At the same time, however,
where information is exchanged and published, the regulation
must guarantee adequate protection of personal data, for
example to forest owners with regard to their forest property.
The proposed regulation should make explicit reference to the
Community’s 1995 data protection directive.

3.15.
The regulation mentions ICP Forests (International
Co-operative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of
Air Pollution Effects on Forests), the Scientific Co-ordination

Brussels, 12 December 2002.

the

and

European

Environmental Agency

as
Body
implementing bodies,
in addition to the Commission, the
Member States and the Standing Forestry Committee. The
division of labour between these organisations should be
clarified so as to avoid duplication of work and an exponential
increase in Member States’ reporting obligations under the
regulation.

3.16.
The Standing Forestry Committee should be given a
central role in the implementation and development of the
regulation and should act as a regulatory committee in the
the Standing
enforcement of the regulation.
Forestry Committee should also act as forum for exchange of
information and discussion with the general public and
stakeholders.

In addition,

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Commission Communication
on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (“Roadmap”)’

(COM(2002) 181 final)

(2003/C 85/21)

On 28 May 2002, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-
mentioned communication.

The specialised Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 14 November 2002. The
rapporteur was Mr Kallio and the co-rapporteur Mr Chagas.

At its 395th plenary session of 11 and 12 December 2002 (meeting of 12 December) the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted unanimously the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

Common Fisheries Policy in March 2001. The EESC issued an
opinion on the Green Paper in October 2001 (1).

1.1.
Declining fish stocks and overcapacity in the fishing
fleet, coupled with poor economic profitability and loss of
jobs, are generating considerable pressure for the reform of
the Community’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

1.3.
For the implementation of the reforms, in May 2002
the Commission published a Communication to the Council
on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (‘Roadmap’) (2)

1.2.
To take stock of the situation and stimulate debate, the
Commission published a Green Paper on the Future of the

(1) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.
(2) COM(2002) 181 final.

C 85/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

and a set of complementary documents (1). In the present
Opinion the EESC will comment mainly on the Roadmap,
taking into consideration also the complementary documents
on ‘eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing’,
‘conservation and sustainable
fisheries
resources’,
‘integration of environmental protection require-
ments’, ‘structural assistance’, and ‘emergency reserve measure
for scrapping fishing vessels’.

exploitation of

Commission and the Member States will draw up an action
plan for cooperation in enforcement. A joint fisheries inspec-
torate structure will be established at Community level. In
addition, the Commission proposes extending the coverage
of vessel monitoring by satellite as a key element of the
implementing measures.

technical measures

As regards conservation of fish stocks and fisheries
1.4.
management,
the Commission proposes applying a more
long-term approach to fisheries management by means of
multiannual framework programmes. Monitoring of fishing
effort will be introduced in the framework programmes
alongside monitoring of catches. The Commission advocates
stronger
to reduce the problem of
unwanted catches. Industrial fishing should target species for
which there is no market for human consumption. An impact
evaluation of industrial fishing on marine eco-systems will be
carried out, developing a set of indicators in cooperation with
the relevant bodies,
including the European Environment
Agency. Steps should be taken to develop fisheries manage-
ment in the Mediterranean Sea. More needs to be done to
incorporate environmental concerns into fisheries manage-
ment and the content of scientific advice on fisheries manage-
ment should be improved.

1.5.
The Commission proposes new rules on the granting
of aid to the fishing fleet and measures to limit fleet capacity.
The possibility of granting aid for the introduction of new
capacity, the export of fishing vessels or the establishment of
joint enterprises with third countries is to be removed. To limit
capacity in the future, the Commission proposes the fixing of
new fleet reference levels, based on the final objectives of
MAGP IV. Reduction of capacity will be monitored regularly
and countries failing to comply with their reference values will
face legal proceedings.

1.6.
The Commission proposes the continuation of the
current regime of 6-to-12 mile zones. Fishing possibilities will
continue to be allocated in accordance with the relative
stability principle. It further proposes to identify which access
arrangements (such as the Shetland Box) correspond to
genuine conservation needs and to remove those that do not.

1.7.
A new regulatory framework for control and enforce-
ment is proposed. As part of this framework, the responsibiliti-
es of
the various parties will be clearly defined. Stricter
rules are proposed for compensation and sanctions. The

1.8.
In the field of international fisheries, the main aim is
to stop the use of flag-of-convenience vessels and illegal,
unreported and unregulated fisheries (IUU). Efforts will also be
made to improve and strengthen cooperation and fishing
agreements with developing countries.

1.9.
The aim of the aquaculture strategy is to assure the
availability of healthy products, promote an environmentally
sound industry and create employment, particularly in fishing-
dependent areas. On 19 September 2002 the Commission
adopted a Communication for a sustainable development of
European aquaculture (2) which has been generally welcomed
by the sector.

1.10.
The Commission admits that the reform of the CFP
will have major socio-economic effects but is unable to
quantify them. However it indicates a figure of 28 000 fisher-
men as possibly being affected by the proposed measures. The
Commission intends to conduct bilateral consultations with
Member States to assess the socio-economic consequences of
the reform. On the basis of these consultations, an action plan
will be formulated to counter these consequences. Structural
Funds will be reprogrammed to match needs.

The Commission will organise workshops during
1.11.
2002 on the economic dimension of fisheries management.
Among the subjects to be discussed will be a system of tradable
fishing rights and payment for the right to fish and/or recovery
of fisheries management costs from the fishing sector.

Under

the heading ‘Effective and participatory
1.12.
decision-making’, the Commission proposes the establishment
of Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management
(RACs). The purpose of
the RACs is to ensure greater
stakeholder involvement in fisheries management. One of their
tasks would be to contribute to the development of a European
code of responsible fisheries practices to be drawn up in the

( 1) COM(2002) 180 final, COM(2002) 185 final, COM(2002) 186

final, COM(2002) 187 final and COM(2002) 190 final.

(2) COM(2002) 511 final.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/89

framework of
the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and
Aquaculture. The Commission also proposes the simplification
of the rules governing the CFP and greater transparency in
Member States’ compliance with CFP rules.

2.2. Conservation of resources and management of fisheries

1.13.
The Commission proposes that the conservation and
fleet policy aspects of the CFP be the subject of a further review
in 2008.

2. General comments

2.1.
The EESC agreed with the diagnosis of the situation in
the EU fishing sector reflected in the 2001 Commission’s Green
Paper and in particular relating to the existing overcapacity in
the EU fleet. In fact it must be clear that no sustainable fisheries
will be possible if the fleet capacity, but especially, the fishing
effort are kept at their current levels. The EESC considers,
however, that the approach to the problem cannot be solely
economic or ecological. In its Opinion on the Green Paper (1)
it underlined that for the regions concerned the importance of
fisheries extends far beyond their contribution to GDP. Fishe-
ries cannot be seen as just another sector which the EU has to
restructure. In the large majority it is composed of small-scale
fishermen whose activities are, in general, respectful of the
environment. Fishing constitutes the hub around which a
whole series of communities and activities revolve, playing a
significant role in terms of social cohesion and regional
management, and this is particularly true in the outermost
regions and regions which are at present highly dependent on
fishing.

2.1.1.
In fact, the Commission underlines the low profita-
bility of the sector and concludes that the solution is in
drastically reducing the number of vessels and fishers and in
making the vessels more effective and profitable. Taking into
consideration recent experiences of modernisation of fishing
fleets that had, as a consequence, a drastic reduction of
employment, not always accompanied by an equivalent
reduction in capacity, consideration should be given to the
need to meet an adequate balance between profitability and
efficiency of fishing vessels on the one hand, and sustainable
It must also be recalled that,
employment on the other.
in the period
according to figures from the Commission,
1990 to 1998, 66 000 jobs have been eliminated, representing
22 % of the work force. The EESC is of the opinion that an in-
depth evaluation should be made of the social consequences
of the measures contained in the different proposals adopted
by the Commission. Necessary support measures should be
simultaneously adopted.

( 1) COM(2002) 511 final, point 2.1.2.

2.2.1.
The EESC endorses the Commission’s general aims
for conservation of resources and management of fisheries. As
regards an immediate and significant reduction in fishing
effort, it should, however, be pointed out that the need for
reduction varies considerably between fishing grounds, fleet
segments and fleet capacity already achieved by each Member
State in the framework of MAGP IV.

2.2.2.
In addition, it must be noted that the creation of a
comprehensive scheme for monitoring fishing effort alongside
the quota system would be very cumbersome to administer.
Therefore the EESC proposes that the development of arrange-
ments for monitoring fishing effort should focus primarily on
the most overexploited fish stocks.

2.3. A new multi-annual framework programme for conservation

of resources and management of fisheries

The Commission’s proposal

2.3.1.
for a multi-annual
framework programme for conservation of stocks and man-
agement of resources is in line with the EESC’s opinion on the
Green Paper. A multi-annual programme will stabilise the
fishing environment and enable fishermen and the processing
industry to make longer-term plans for the development of
their activities. The EESC considers it
important that the
programme will, in addition, take into account the particular
needs of the EU’s outermost regions and of regions which are
at present highly dependent on fishing.

2.3.2.
The EESC would highlight the importance of high-
quality scientific advice for the drawing up of multiannual
framework programmes. Raising the standard of advice will
make it possible to narrow the gap that currently exists
between advice and political decision-making. In this context
the EESC encourages greater cooperation between the scientific
community and the fisheries sector for the evaluation of the
scientific data in a clearer and more vigorous way. This
cooperation should be established especially in the Regional
Advisory Councils where all the stakeholders are represented.

2.3.3.
Despite the fact that the Council has not always
decided in accordance with the scientific advice and in the best
interest of preservation of marine resources, the EESC has
reservations in relation to the Commission’s proposal
to
exclude the Council of the yearly decision-making process on
TACs and Quotas once the multi-annual programme has been
adopted.

C 85/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

2.4.

Strengthening of technical measures

2.4.1.
The EESC supports the introduction of more selective
fishing gear on Community vessels. Owing to the high cost of
making changes to fishing gear, the Committee would stress
the need for
in
the Committee
implementing such changes.
puts forward the possibility of using Community structural
assistance to part-fund the acquisition of new types of fishing
gear or more selective gear, which might help to speed up
changes.

long
In addition,

transition periods

sufficiently

2.4.2.
The discard ban trials are in line with earlier EESC
recommendations. Discards are due to many different reasons
and a ban is not always justified. The trials will have maximum
effect if they are coupled with measures aimed at reducing the
share of unwanted species in the total catch. Such measures
include an increase in the selectivity of fishing gear, temporal
and local fishing restrictions and the use of economic incen-
tives to encourage voluntary changes in fishing practices.

2.4.3.
Technical measures must be based on extensive
scientific evidence. In order to increase the effectiveness of the
measures, representatives of the fishing industry must be
involved from the beginning in planning new technical
regulations and voluntary measures. These might include the
gradual elimination of certain types of bottom trawling within
the 12 miles zone.

2.5.

Industrial fishing

2.5.1.
The EESC supports the targeting of industrial fishing
primarily at species for which there is no market for human
consumption. The impact of industrial fishing on the food
chains of other species must be established. In the future, it
will be possible to manage industrial fishing of different stocks
within the framework of regional multiannual management
plans.

2.6.

Fisheriesmanagement in the Mediterranean

2.6.1.
The EESC supports all efforts to increase cooperation
between the countries surrounding the Mediterranean aimed
at securing fish stocks and fishermen’s livelihoods. Pending a
deeper analysis of the document, it welcomes the recently
adopted Communication on this matter and is of the view that
it may represent an improvement in the way fisheries are
presently managed in this area (1).

( 1) Communication laying down a Community Plan for the conser-
fisheries resources in
vation and sustainable exploitation of
the Mediterranean Sea under the Common Fisheries Policy
(COM(2002) 535 final).

2.7.

Incorporating environmental concerns into fisheries manage-
ment

2.7.1.
Environmental concerns have to be taken into
account in all the EU’s common policies, including fisheries
policy. However, in addressing environmental concerns, the
CFP’s economic and social objectives must also be taken into
consideration.

2.7.2.
Clear indicators are needed for monitoring the effects
of environmental protection and targeting measures. Given
the poor state of the environment, there is good reason
to move quickly on this matter. The EESC welcomes the
Commission’s proposal for the speedy establishment of a
preliminary set of indicators. The further development of
indicators and the monitoring system is a subject which needs
to be addressed by the international scientific community in
the years ahead, for example by the European Environmental
Agency and the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea.

2.7.3.
In considering proposals for the protection of sharks,
whales and marine birds, the Commission should also be
mindful of the conditions necessary for the continuation of
fishing activity. Here cooperation with fishermen’s organis-
ations is essential in order to minimise the harmful effects on
fisheries. In fact, fishing activities must find their balance with
environmental sustainability, but the same applies for other
human activities, particularly in the coastal areas. These,
together with environmental and climatic changes, can also
have a significant impact on marine environment. As for the
costs arising from protection of the aquatic environment, the
EESC,
in line with its earlier opinions, would stress the
importance of applying the polluter-pays principle, as a means
to minimize the negative impact of these different activities.
The EESC will comment more in depth on this subject in
considering the strategy to protect and conserve the marine
environment that has recently been presented in a Communi-
cation from the Commission (2).

2.7.4.
The introduction of an ecosystem-based approach
requires the collection of environmental data on a far more
extensive scale than at present and the integration of data
from different sources. Therefore the EESC welcomes the
Commission’s proposal to include marine ecosystems as a
separate field of research in the Community’s 6th Framework
Programme for research.

2.8. An Action Plan for the improvement of scientific advice for

fisheries management

Scientific advice on the actual state of fish stocks is
2.8.1.
the most important element of fisheries management. The
EESC therefore considers it very important to improve such
advice. Advice is a based on analyses of nationally collected
data. At present, there are such large deficiencies in national
source data on several fish species that analysis is more or less
guesswork. Improvement in source data, their analysis and the
level of scientific advice is a long-term goal, which also
concerns fishing by non-EU countries in international waters.

(2) COM(2002) 539 final.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/91

The EESC encourages better cooperation between the scientific
community and the fisheries sector.

2.8.2.
Obtaining reliable fishing data requires an intensifi-
cation of national and international monitoring of fishing,
comparison of catch data from different sources and sanctions
in cases where it is found that data have been concealed.

processing the raw material, improving the quality of life on
board, and enhancing safety for crews’. This is a crucial
aspect of redefining the CFP, which needs to be ecologically,
economically and socially sustainable. At
the same time
account must be taken of the fact that fishing is one of the
most dangerous professions in Europe and the world, involving
the highest number of industrial accidents.

2.8.3.
The ESCE underlines the need to strengthen research
in this field, encouraging better cooperation and exchange of
information at European level and allocating appropriate
resources in the framework of the VI RTD Programme.

2.9.4.
In its proposal for new rules on granting aid to
fishing vessels, the Commission has adopted an approach
about which the EESC has certain reservations. In particular
the Committee is sceptical about the withdrawal of public aid
for the modernisation of fishing vessels, which would come
into effect as early as 1 January 2003.

2.9.

The impact of fish stock preservation policy on the fishing fleet

2.9.1.
In its Opinion on the Green Paper on the future of
the Common Fisheries Policy (1) the EESC agreed with the
Commission’s analysis regarding excess capacity of the Com-
munity fleet. The Committee called on the Member States and
the Commission to have the political courage to grasp the
attendant challenges and embark on the necessary measures,
which must be balanced, decided in a dialogue with the sector
and ‘in particular ... must provide the support needed to
cushion any socio-economic consequences’.

2.9.2.
The EESC also repeated the view frequently stated in
previous opinions that: ‘Fishing cannot be treated solely from
an economic viewpoint because ... for the regions concerned,
the importance of fisheries and all ancillary activities, both
upstream and downstream, extends far beyond their contri-
bution 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’.

Likewise, the EESC emphasised:

2.9.3.
‘... 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

( 1) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002.

2.9.5.
Although the fishing fleet in certain Member States
is technically quite well developed and very efficient, in other
Member States vessels are out of date, small and low in
catching capacity. The latter use traditional methods of fishing
which are generally more selective than others, and these
require considerable manpower. When reducing the Com-
munity fishing effort these differences must be taken into
account, especially the fact that measures have social impli-
cations the impact of which on the communities concerned
cannot be measured in monetary terms.

2.9.6.
In previous programmes for reducing the fleet, the
Member States have each taken a different approach to the
issue: some have exceeded the target set for fleet reduction,
while others have increased fishing capacity. Figures provided
by the European Commission and the Eurostat annual review
for 2001 speak for themselves: in the period 1991-2002 the
Community catch fell by only about 2 % (6.3 million tonnes)
and in some Member States the catch has even increased.

Although subsidies cannot be a permanent solution
2.9.7.
for the sector, the EESC believes there are still reasons (workers’
safety, working and living condition, quality, etc.) to continue
granting public aid for modernising fishing vessels. The current
restrictions can still be maintained, in particular the ban on
increasing fleet capacity. The same point is made in the above-
mentioned Opinion on the Green Paper: ‘... 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’.

C 85/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

2.9.8.
The Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquacul-
ture and the Sectoral Dialogue Committee for Maritime
Fisheries also expressed this view in their opinions on the
Green Paper.

2.12.

International fisheries

2.9.9.
The discontinuation of aid to fishing vessels is also
likely to accelerate concentration of the Community fishing
fleet, which would be harmful to small-scale fishing. This
would have serious social implications upstream and down-
stream, not just for fishing but also for production, and for
communities and industries dependent on fishing.

2.9.10.
However, the EESC welcomes the fact that the
Commission intends to approve the granting of aid to
activities related to safety, more selective fishing techniques
and improving product quality.

The EESC takes the view that small-scale fishing
2.9.11.
vessels (under 12 meters) should be left out of the scope of the
capacity-reduction plans of the reform.

2.10. Access to waters and resources

The EESC supports the preservation of the current
2.10.1.
6-to-12 mile fishing zones under national
jurisdiction. As
regards fishing beyond the 6-to-12 mile zones, the Com-
mission should conduct negotiations with all Member States
as soon possible. The EESC also endorses the continued
allocation of fishing opportunities in accordance with the
current relative stability principle. However, the EESC considers
that care must be taken to respect the content of the Treaties
with regard to the principles of equal access and distribution
of fishing rights.

2.11. Control and enforcement

2.11.1.
In line with earlier opinions, the EESC would stress
the importance of control in connection with the reform of
fisheries policy. The responsibilities of the Commission and
Member States for control and enforcement must be clearly
defined. Sanctions for infringements and practical arrange-
ments for their enforcement must be made uniform across
Member States. The EESC considers the best solution would be
if the power to decide on control procedures under the CFP
remained in the hands of the Council.

The EESC supports the extension of the satellite
2.11.2.
vessel monitoring system to apply to smaller vessels than at
present. In view of the high cost of the equipment, the EESC
proposes that the Commission contribute towards the cost of
the equipment and installation. To ensure that the equipment
that
is used effectively,
appropriate training is provided when the equipment
is
deployed.

the Commission must see to it

2.12.1.
The EESC endorses the Commission’s proposed aim
to strengthen international cooperation and ensure sustainable
and responsible fisheries outside Community waters. Eliminat-
ing the use of flag-of-convenience vessels for fishing is one of
the priority measures to be taken to achieve the goal of
elimination of illegal, uncontrolled and unregulated fishing.
The EESC considers that the joint enterprises are one possible
instrument for reorientating the fisheries fleet and for cooper-
ation with third countries under the Cooperation and Develop-
ment Policy. To this end greater coordination is needed in the
EU between the CFP and the EU’s Development Cooperation
Policy, establishing strict criteria for ensuring coherence with
the sustainable development strategy.

2.12.2.
From the standpoint of fishermen’s employment
and EU food supplies, there will continue to be a need for
fishing agreements with third countries. Sustainable fisheries
require that catches are controlled and based on fish stocks
that are subject to monitoring. The EESC requests that scientific
advice, as proposed by the Commission, be obtained for the
fish stocks covered by the agreements before fishing starts.
Moreover, third countries’ own fishing activities must not be
put at risk as a result of fishing agreements. The EESC considers
that the Commission should have a more active role, with
adequate resources, within the regional fisheries organisations
level, with a view to a better defence of
at international
Community fisheries’ policies. Fisheries agreements have an
important job creation impact.

2.12.3.
The EESC further notes that the EU social partners
in the fishing sector, ETF and Europêche, have agreed on a
social clause being included in all fisheries agreements with
third countries, aiming at ensuring that nationals from those
countries working on board vessels benefiting from the
agreement enjoy the same working conditions as those of the
EU crews on board. It strongly urges the Commission to
include this clause into all existing and future agreements.

2.13. Aquaculture

The EESC feels that the Commission’s proposals
2.13.1.
approach the Common Fisheries Policy with a strong bias
towards fishing, paying scant regard to the economically

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/93

important aquaculture sector. The EESC hopes that the separate
proposal on aquaculture recently presented will remedy this
shortcoming (1).

2.15.

Economic management of fisheries in the Union

2.13.2.
There has been a steady increase in imports of
aquaculture products into the EU and a large proportion of
the aquaculture products processed in the EU is already based
on imported fish. In order to prevent self-sufficiency from
declining further in the future, the EESC considers it important
to maintain the level of aquaculture production in the Com-
munity at at least its current level.

2.15.1.
The EESC does not believe that abolition of the
system of national fishing quotas is a realistic goal in the short
term. Instead, there should be a discussion on how the level of
fishing can be adjusted to meet quotas and how to allocate
quotas so as to benefit fishermen in the best possible way.
Discussion of the economic dimension of fisheries manage-
ment should also cover social aspects and environmental
concerns.

2.14.

The social dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy

The EESC draws attention to fact that the reform of
2.14.1.
the CFP will have important social implications for coastal
regions dependent upon fisheries. It should be noted that for
every professional fisherman who loses his job there are several
land-based workers who are made unemployed as a result of
the knock-on effect. The EESC thinks it is important that the
Commission proposes to conduct bilateral consultations as a
basis for formulating action plans to assess and counter the
socio-economic consequences of the reform of the CFP. The
EESC takes note of the recent adoption by the European
Commission of an Action Plan (2) to counter the social,
economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of
the EU fishing industry and will comment on this in a future
opinion.

2.14.2.
The EESC would stress that there are several ways
of dealing with the loss in employment in fishing and fish
processing. The solutions depend on such factors as local
employment opportunities, the age structure of fishermen and
available forms of support. Here, the Commission can collect
extensive data from Member States on the various employment
schemes already applied and the experience gained with them.
Serious consideration should be given to the joint position to
be adopted before the end of 2002 by the European social
partners on this matter.

2.14.3. When cutting fleet capacity and offering incentives
to fishermen to take up other professions, attention also needs
to be paid to the livelihood of the remaining fishermen and
the continuation of industry. There must also be scope for
modernising the industry and for the entry of young fishermen.
In particular, a higher commitment of the Member States to
the ratification of the STCW-F Convention and the Protocol to
the Torremolinos Convention is desirable.

( 1) Communication on ‘A strategy for the sustainable development

of European Aquaculture’ (COM(2002) 511 final).

( 2) COM(2002) 600 final.

2.15.2.
In its Opinion on the Green Paper (point 2.2.7) the
EESC expressed its disagreement with the system of individual
transferable quotas (ITQ), underlining the risk that ‘the insti-
tutionalisation of such a system would concentrate fishing
rights in large businesses, spelling the end of small-scale
fisheries and small and medium-sized enterprises’ causing a
deterioration in the employment position of fishermen overall.
As the Commission is organising workshops on this subject,
experience gained in this area should be evaluated considering
costs and benefits and impacts on employment in view of
issuing proper recommendations. Payment for the right to fish
should also be addressed by the workshops.

2.16.

Effective and participatory decision-making

2.16.1.
The EESC supports the establishment of Regional
Advisory Councils for fisheries management (RACs). There is
a danger however that the RACs will become regional debating
societies, without any practical influence. The EESC takes the
view that the RACs must have a clearly defined role identifying
all matters affecting fishing in the region providing this will
not lead to undermining the maintenance of an EU-based
common policy. Third countries which have a significant
impact on fisheries in the region concerned should be given
an opportunity to participate as external members in RAC
meetings and express their opinions.

The EESC agrees that the RACs must play a major
2.16.2.
role in the implementation of a European code of responsible
fisheries practices. It is important here to take regional aspects
into account owing to large local differences in fishing
practices. The EESC considers that regional advisory councils
should be established within the framework of the EU Advisory
Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture and its working
groups.

C 85/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

2.17.

Eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries

The EESC supports the measures for improving the
2.17.1.
flow of
information between the Community and third
countries and strengthening cooperation with a view to
curbing unlawful fishing and fishing by vessels flying flags of
convenience.

2.17.2.
The EESC feels that, given the lack of resources in
developing countries for controlling fishing activities, the
European Community should assist the developing countries
in the control of fishing that takes place in their waters.
Assistance should be provided as proposed by the Commission
on terms to be determined on a case-by-case basis. This
assistance could be part of the fisheries agreements to be
concluded with developing countries.

3. Conclusions

The EESC wishes to highlight particularly the following
3.1.
points with regard to the reform of the CFP and the Com-
mission’s documents on the subject:

— The introduction of multiannual framework programmes
in fisheries management could benefit the entire fisheries
industry and provide operators in the sector with a clearer
picture of the future.

— High-quality scientific advice will

take on increasing
importance in all areas of decision-making related to
fisheries management; better coordination at European
level is recommended so as to strengthen the research
effort in this field ensuring better cooperation with the
fisheries sector.

Brussels, 12 December 2002.

— Greater consideration must be given to environmental
concerns in decision-making than at present. However,
in addressing environmental issues, the economic and
social objectives of the CFP must also be taken into
account.

— The EESC proposes that the polluter-pays principle be
applied in determining who is to bear the costs of
environmental management, taking into consideration all
human activities having an impact on the quality of
marine environment and water.

— Public aid should continue to be granted for the renewal
and modernisation of the fishing fleet. Aid could be tied
to the requirement that, at the same time, steps are taken
to reduce fleet capacity.

— The 6-to-12 mile zones and the relative stability principle
remain an effective basis for regulating fishing in the
future.

— International cooperation and better control are essential

for achieving the objectives of the CFP.

— Special attention needs to be paid to the socio-economic
implications of the CFP reforms for the entire coastal
community. The CFP reforms must not be allowed to
destroy the livelihoods of the remaining fishermen or
prevent the entry of young people into the sector.

— The Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries management
are to be welcomed, but they need to be given a clearly
defined role and concrete tasks within the framework of
the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture
and its working groups.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH