Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament laying down a Community Action Plan for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea under the Common Fisheries Policy" (COM(2002) 535 final)
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU action, Mediterranean Sea, action programme, common fisheries policy, conservation of resources, fishery resources, sustainable development

C 133/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament laying down a Community Action Plan
for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea
under the Common Fisheries Policy’

(COM(2002) 535 final)

(2003/C 133/06)

On 9 October 2002 the Commission decided the consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

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 11 March 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion.

1.

Introduction

— improving the availability of scientific advice,

This Communication from the Commission (1) lays
1.1.
down an action plan for Mediterranean fisheries,
thereby
laying the foundations for a new vision and a new framework
for fisheries in the region.

1.2.
This new vision would take full account of all the
factors allowing for responsible and sustainable fisheries, and
would be part of an integrated approach based on new
in which fishing
requirements regarding the environment
activities are conducted in each Member State.

The new framework, meanwhile, would be based on a
1.3.
new approach to the jurisdiction of maritime waters and
relations with third countries operating in the area, and allow
for the full application of all components of the CFP, in
particular fisheries conservation policy; studies and research
conducted by official bodies in the Member States and other
international organisations suggest that stocks are overexploit-
ed and require effective action to promote regeneration.

In particular, the Commission action plan recommends

1.4.
the following:

— adopting a concerted approach to the declaration of

Fisheries Protection Zones,

— using fishing effort management as a key instrument,

— improving fishing methods to reduce the negative impact

on stocks and the marine environment,

— improving control and enforcement measures,

( 1) COM(2002) 535 final.

— increasing the participation of the fisheries sector in the

consultation process,

— promoting international cooperation.

2. General comments

Fishing activities

2.1.
in the Mediterranean are very
in many
important both economically and socially and,
instances, their specific importance far exceeds their relative
importance in terms of contribution to GDP. In terms of
employment, the Mediterranean fleet generates 42 % of EU
jobs in the sector.

2.2.
The overwhelming majority of vessels operating in the
Mediterranean — and 80,2 % of all Community vessels
operating in the area — are less than 12m long. The
Mediterranean fleet can therefore be described as an essentially
artisanal fleet.

2.3.
Owing to the narrowness of the continental shelf and
the types of vessel operating in the area, this fleet fishes very
close to the coast in territorial waters. It is therefore unique
not only in terms of enterprise structure, but also in terms of
type of activity, nature of the work, capital investments and
amount of catches.

2.4.
The special nature of Mediterranean fisheries also
determined the way in which the Common Fisheries Policy
was applied in the area and subsequently adapted since it was
introduced.

2.5.
Although, in general terms, the CFP’s structure and
market policies were applied in the Mediterranean as in other
Community areas, its conservation policy — possibly the most
important part of the Common Fisheries Policy — was not
applied as rigidly. This is also true of control policy.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/27

2.6.
Integrated fisheries management requires an analysis
of biological, economic and social aspects, appropriate man-
agement instruments, and dialogue between the sector, the
authorities and the scientific community.

practice have extended their waters by adopting environmental
protection zones, point to the need to address this issue
carefully but ambitiously.

2.7.
The Committee welcomes this Commission Communi-
cation and the measures it proposes to meet its objective of
redefining the Common Fisheries Policy in the Mediterranean
within three years, which implies — inter alia — applying the
full array of management instruments that already exist within
the CFP. This is a very ambitious objective given the short
space of time the Commission has given itself to achieve it.

The EESC has, furthermore, called for such action in a

2.8.
number of previous opinions (1).

The Committee also highlights the Commission’s inten-
2.9.
tion that actions taken at Community level to meet this
objective should be the result of a broad debate with the social
partners, either within the existing relevant bodies or in bodies
set up for this purpose. Setting up a Regional Advisory Council
for the Mediterranean, as envisaged in the roadmap, could be
a major step in the right direction. The EESC also welcomes the
work being done to set up a Mediterranean-wide fishermen’s
association, and stresses the importance of involving all the
main stakeholders — in particular, ship owners and employees’
representatives — in this process.

2.9.1.
The widespread illegal fishing that is practised in the
Mediterranean by vessels from outside the region flouts good
practice and is incompatible with responsible and sustainable
fisheries. The Committee stresses the need to promote cooper-
ation between coastal states, and therefore welcomes the
holding of a regional conference to map out new developments
for Mediterranean fisheries.

2.10.
The Committee particularly welcomes the idea of
considering a new approach and common position on
extending the area of jurisdiction over territorial waters, as the
current situation is very inconsistent. Some Member States in
the area have between 6 and 12 miles of territorial waters,
another has a 49-mile Fisheries Protection Zone, and a future
Member State has a 25-mile Exclusive Fishing Zone. This
situation and initiatives by some Member States, who in

( 1) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

The EESC welcomes this approach and calls for efforts
2.11.
to be made at EU level with a view to reaching a common
position on the jurisdiction of maritime waters, and for this to
be pursued multilaterally between all the coastal states of the
Mediterranean. This could be the cornerstone of successful
CFP reform in the Mediterranean.

A common position on extending territorial waters
2.12.
could make a huge contribution, inter alia, to standardising
CFP management, harmonising procedures,
increasing the
level of responsibility of stakeholders, and combating illegal
fishing and any other actions that flout good practice or fail to
meet responsible fishing criteria.

The Committee welcomes this approach, which
2.13.
should not lead to an increase in fishing effort, but should
ensure that the Member States concerned can control this
effort more effectively. However, the Member States must be
given the human, technical and financial resources needed to
apply control measures properly.

2.14.
Studies and advice produced by the relevant official
bodies in the Member States and other scientific bodies all
agree on the depleted state of fisheries resources in the
Mediterranean. It is therefore a matter of urgency that the
conservation policy is fully applied in order to ensure the
sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and the conti-
nuity of this activity, which is very important both economi-
cally and socially for the survival of certain regions and their
communities.

2.15.
Simultaneously implementing Community fisheries
conservation and management policy in the Mediterranean and
encouraging the active intervention of regional coordination
bodies — e.g. by improving cooperation with other neighbour-
ing countries in the region — could be highly beneficial for
the future of Mediterranean fisheries and would also have
positive repercussions for other areas. The FAO’s sub-regional
projects (e.g. Adriamed, Copemed and Medsudmed) could
provide the basis for consolidating scientific cooperation.

2.16.
Preparing the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
in the Mediterranean requires knowledge of the situation in
in particular, of the state
which action will be taken and,
of stocks, their biological make-up and/or their chance of
regenerating.

C 133/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

2.17.
Fishing depends on a complex biological situation
that is affected by many factors — climatic, environmental
and others — about which more needs to be known.

mentally-friendly methods and fishing gear to be adopted. As
it has stated on numerous occasions, it is essential that social
and economic stakeholders are involved in drawing up these
measures and in preparing the planned revision of Regulation
(EC) No 1626/94.

If this economic activity is to continue and biodivers-
2.18.
ity be preserved, very specific rules for the conservation
and management of biological resources must therefore be
introduced. Failing this, we are simply contributing towards
their depletion.

2.24.
An in-depth analysis is also needed of fishing activities
that are termed ‘recreational fishing’ but which are sometimes
comparable to professional activity.

2.18.1.
By increasing multilateral cooperation, these rules
should be harmonised and applied to all fleets operating in the
Mediterranean.

To ensure that decisions — and indeed all

the
2.19.
regulatory machinery governing Mediterranean fisheries — are
sound, scientific advice on fisheries also needs to be improved.

2.20. While the various institutes and scientific communi-
ties throughout the Member States have made an effort to
produce scientific studies and advice relevant to the sector,
these efforts must be adapted to the genuine realities and needs
of the sector if such material is to be objective and relevant.

2.21. Moreover, with regard to fisheries in both the Atlantic
and the Mediterranean, the EESC has already stressed that there
is a need to ‘strengthen research in this field, encouraging
better cooperation and exchange of information at European
level and allocating appropriate resources’ (1). The Committee
is therefore concerned by the reduction of funding available for
research in the sector under the 6th Framework Programme.

2.22.
Setting up a Mediterranean subgroup within the
STECF (2) could be extremely useful in supporting new manage-
ment actions and measures,
is given the appropriate
human and financial resources.

if it

As previously stated in its Opinion (1) on the road-
2.23.
map (3), the EESC welcomes the gradual reduction of fishing
practices and methods that have a negative impact on the
marine environment, and calls for more selective and environ-

2.25.
The CFP’s objectives in the Mediterranean must
safeguard the Community’s leading role in applying its various
policies in order to ensure sustainable activities and consistent
policies, while also ensuring that national and local bodies are
properly involved in the various areas, in particular through
Regional Advisory Councils.

2.26.
In order to safeguard the environmental conditions
necessary for protecting fisheries resources, considerable vigil-
ance is needed regarding environmental measures and actions
to fight pollution and protect the biotope. This is particularly
pressing in a sea such as the Mediterranean.

2.26.1.
Protection of the marine environment is essential if
fishing activities are to be sustainable. Greater consideration
must be given to this area and words translated into action as
part of a genuinely comprehensive and integrated policy for
the protection of the marine environment that addresses, inter
alia,
the serious pollution problems caused by accidents
involving ships carrying fuel or dangerous goods, or oil spills
at sea.

2.27.
The adjustments and reforms that will need to be
introduced to enable the CFP to be applied in the Mediterranean
are bound to have repercussions on the social fabric.

Indeed,

the conservation,
the full application of
2.28.
structure and market policies in the Mediterranean — even
after they have been adapted to the specific characteristics of
the area — will have social consequences for people who make
their living from the sea.

The Committee stresses that

2.29.
support should be
provided for the development of aquaculture as a complement
to traditional fishing activity.

( 1) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.
( 2) Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
( 3) COM(2002) 181 final.

The EESC recommends that Common Fisheries Policy
2.30.
reform in this region should take full account of the social
dimension, as this is a key element that will lend it credibility.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/29

In particular, it points to the Opinion currently being prepared
on the ‘Action plan to counter the social, economic and
regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing
industry’ and, given the essentially artisanal nature of the
sector in this region, the role that could be played by women.

2.31.
In the meantime, the introduction of socio-economic
measures by the Member States must be harmonised so as to
prevent undesirable distortions of competition and ensure
appropriate levels of social protection. This is currently not
the case.

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council
Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of
studies, vocational training or voluntary service’

(COM(2002) 548 final — 2002/0242 (CNS))

(2003/C 133/07)

On 21 October 2002 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 2003. The rapporteur was Mr Pariza
Castaños.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 88 votes to none with five abstentions.

1. Summary of the proposed directive

The draft directive concerns entry and residence con-
1.1.
ditions for four distinct categories of third-country nationals.
The first is students, meaning those entering for higher or
professional education purposes. The second is school pupils,
meaning those in secondary education and coming through
exchange schemes. Thirdly are unremunerated trainees, receiv-
ing vocational
training without pay. The fourth category
comprises volunteers, those coming to perform solidarity-
based activities as part of a voluntary programme carried out
by a non-profit organisation.

1.3.
In order to allow persons of any of the four categories
to enter, the directive imposes a number of requirements
common to all four categories and others which are specific to
each of them. The common requirements are, basically, to
hold a passport and parental authorisation (where applicable),
to have health-care insurance, not to be considered a threat to
public policy, and to have paid the fees for processing the
residence permit (where required by the Member State).

The directive will not apply to asylum seekers or
1.2.
persons receiving subsidiary protection, or to persons with
long-term resident status.

1.4.
Students (in higher or professional education) must
also prove that they have been admitted to an educational
establishment, they have adequate resources to cover their
costs and, where the Member State so requires, that they
possess sufficient language skills and have paid the establish-
ment’s enrolment fees.