Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Action plan to counter the social, economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry" (COM(2002) 600 final)
Date: 2003-05-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU aid, action programme, economic consequence, fishing industry, fishing rights, industrial restructuring, social situation

C 208/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

State or not. The Committee would therefore suggest using
some of the systems already provided for this purpose in
Community legislation, such as the stipulation in the Water
Framework Directive that the various authorities in a river

basin must coordinate with each other when implementing
the designated river basin plan and, above all, must provide
regular information on each of the jurisdictional areas in
which this plan is developed.

Brussels, 14 May 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — Action plan to counter the social,
economic and regional consequences of the restructuring of the EU fishing industry’

(COM(2002) 600 final)

(2003/C 208/05)

On 6 November 2002 the 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 Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 April 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Chagas.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 14 May), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes in favour, with 2 against and 7 abstentions.

1. The Commission proposal

1.1.
The action plan proposed by the Commission was
intended to address the probable social, economic and regional
consequences of restructuring the fishing industry in response
to the depletion of certain fisheries resources.
It seeks to
identify the impact of limiting fishing effort for certain species
in certain areas as part of the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP).

involve a reduction in the number of fishing days fishing
vessels could target specific stocks, which are likely to result in
reductions of income, either because these vessels would have
to switch to alternative but less profitable fisheries, or because
of tie-ups. Modifications to the fleet aid policy will also involve
social costs: the proposed restriction of aid for modernisation,
as well as the proposed elimination of aid for renewal and
export of fishing vessels and the more attractive scheme to
permanently reduce capacity are likely to have consequences
for the sector.

1.2.
The Commission feels that, despite the social cost
associated with the reform of the CFP and particularly that
resulting from a reduction of fishing effort within the frame-
work of multi-annual management plans, the cost of postpon-
ing the measures now considered necessary would be far more
serious. Such effort
limitation schemes are likely to be
translated by Member States into tie-up schemes. These would

The present Communication from the Commission

1.3.
includes:

— an assessment of the likely socio-economic impacts of
fishing effort limitations and reductions in vessel numbers
in particular a review of the provisional estimate of lost
jobs;

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/23

— a review of all the existing means to alleviate these
impacts within the existing Community aid regimes
(FIFG, ERDF and ESF);

— an overview of additional means which could become
available in the short term through the reform of the CFP
and the reprogramming of the Structural Funds;

— an analysis of further options for the longer term.

Among the proposed measures to be financed under

1.4.
the funding available for the period 2000-2006 are:

— the reprogramming of up to EUR 611 million in the FIFG
programme for social and capacity reduction measures
thanks to the phasing out, from 2003 onwards, of aid for
fleet modernisation and renewal, as well as aid for the
transfer of vessels to third countries;

— special measures in favour of small-scale fishing which
accounts for some 70 % of vessels and around 50 % of
employment in the sector;

— improving the image of the sector by improving living
and working conditions aboard vessels, as well as social
protection in the fishing industry and measures to support
young fishermen and the switch to more sustainable
fishing activities;

— support for the diversification of activity as part of an
integrated development programme for coastal areas.

The Commission also focuses particular attention on
1.5.
the impact which implementing reductions in the fishing effort
under multi-annual management plans will undoubtedly have.
This will involve an annual limit on the number of fishing
days and the consequent reduction in the income of fishermen
and businesses, which may even result in the permanent
withdrawal of the vessel.

2. Outcome of the Fisheries Council of 16-20 December

2002

2.1.
Discussion of the action plan must take account of the
outcome of the Fisheries Council of 16-20 December 2002.
The Council adopted new regulations,
including one on
Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector as
follows:

2.2.
A simpler system for limiting the fishing capacity of
the EU fleet in order to reach a better match with available
resources has been adopted. It will replace the former system
(MAGPs) which,
of Multi-annual Guidance Programmes

according to the Commission, has proved to be ineffective at
tackling the overcapacity of the EU fleet. The new system will
give more responsibility to the Member States to achieve a
better balance between the fishing capacity of their fleets and
the available resources. It includes the following measures:

— reference levels will be set based on the MAGP levels set
for 31 December 2002. The reference levels will be
automatically and permanently reduced whenever any
capacity is withdrawn with public aid. (If a vessel is
withdrawn with public aid the reference levels will be
reduced by an equivalent capacity);

— for each gross registered tonne introduced in the fleet
with public aid (which will only be available for the next
two years, 2003 and 2004), Member States will have to
decommission, without aid:

a)

an equivalent amount of capacity (1:1 entry/exit
ratio) for vessels up to 100 GT (gross registered
tonnes) or

b)

1,35 tonnes (1: 1,35 entry/exit ratio) for vessels over
100 GT;

— over the period 2003/2004, Member States that grant
public aid for the renewal of the fleet, will have to reduce
the overall capacity of their fleets by a minimum of 3 %
compared to their reference levels;

— it will be up to Member States to ensure that the total
fishing capacity of new vessels entering the fleet does not
exceed the capacity of those being permanently removed
and that fishing capacity is adjusted to the available fish
resources.

2.3.
Aid for the renewal of fishing vessels is being phased
out and will only be available for two more years (up to the
end of 2004) and only for vessels under 400 GT. It will be
restricted to Member States which have met their overall
MAGP IV capacity targets and its allocation will have to
comply with the entry/exit ratios described above. This
two-year plan will allow these Member States to continue
modernising their fleets while sending a clear signal that no
more such aid, which can contribute to overfishing, will be
available after 2004.

C 208/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

2.4.
Aid for modernisation of fishing vessels will only be
available for vessels that are at least five years old to improve
safety, product quality or working conditions, switch to more
selective fishing techniques or to equip vessels with the VMS
(Vessel Monitoring Systems). When the modernisation is to
improve safety, product quality or working conditions, an
increase in tonnage will be possible but only for improvements
on the vessel’s superstructure (over the main deck). However,
such modernisation must not increase the ability of the vessel
to catch fish. EU aid will be restricted to Member States which
have met their overall capacity targets set under MAGP IV.

2.5.
A EUR 32 million ‘scrapping fund’ has been established,
to help Member States achieve additional reductions in fishing
effort required under recovery plans. Vessels whose fishing
effort has to be reduced by 25 % or more as a consequence of
a recovery plan will be eligible for aid from this fund;
premiums will be 20 % higher than those available for
decommissioning under FIFG.

2.5.1.
Aid for permanent transfer of EU vessels to third
countries, including through the creation of joint enterprises
with third country partners, will be available for two years
(until the end of 2004). However they will be limited to
exports to countries with which the EU has signed a fisheries
agreement or transfer to set up a joint enterprise in one of
these countries (unless the Commission decides otherwise).
The amount of the premium will be limited to 30 % of the
FIFG scrapping premium for exports and to 80 % for joint
enterprises.

2.5.2.
Aid from Member States to fishermen and vessel
owners who have to temporarily stop their fishing activity can
now be allocated for three consecutive months or for six
months over the entire period between 2000 and 2006 when
stoppages are due to unforeseeable circumstances. Aid may be
extended from one year to a second year if the temporary
interruption results from the implementation of a recovery or
multi-annual management plan, or from emergency measures
decided by the Commission or Member States. Aid to support
the retraining of fishermen to help them reconvert to pro-
fessional activities outside the catching sector will be extended
fishermen’s activities
to supporting the diversification of
outside fisheries, while allowing them to continue fishing on a
part-time basis.

tably involves the recovery of fish stocks, which, in the case of
a number of species, are at extremely critical levels. Indeed, 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. It must be clear that no sustainable fisheries will be
possible if the fleet capacity and 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. Fisheries 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.

3.1.1.
In its opinion on the Roadmap document adopted
by the Commission in 2002 (2), the EESC pointed out ‘the
need to meet an adequate balance between profitability and
efficiency of fishing vessels on the one hand, and sustainable
employment on the other.’

3.2.
The EESC has repeatedly called for restructuring poli-
cies and measures for the fisheries sector to be accompanied
by corresponding social and economic measures to help
reduce the predictable impact on workers and businesses. It
has also argued that it is essential for the latter to be involved
in defining these measures and policies from their inception.

3.3. When the Commission submitted the first set of
measures for the present reform in May 2002, the fact that it
was not accompanied by a set of proposals addressing the
justified concerns of the sector helped to create a climate of
rejection and opposition among workers in the sector and the
various Member States, which could have been avoided if they
had been involved from the start.

3. General comments

3.1.
The present action plan has been put forward at a
critical time for the European fisheries sector when bold
measures are needed to ensure the survival of Community
fishing activity on a lasting and sustainable basis. This inevi-

(1) OJ C 36, 8.2.2002, point 2.1.2.
(2) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/25

3.4.
The Committee would add that, as the Commission
stated in its Roadmap document (1), the present document was
drawn up on the basis of bilateral consultations with the
Member States. However,
the social
partners, boat owners and trade unions should have been
involved in this consultation exercise so that the socio-
economic measures they put forward could be taken into
consideration from the start.

the EESC feels that

As pointed out before, the Commission proposal must
3.5.
be seen within the context in which it was submitted, that is,
as an attempt to address the consequences that the measures
put forward in a first set of proposals would have in social and
economic terms. However, in the light of the decisions adopted
by the Council of Ministers in December 2002, some of these
consequences will be partially limited and the available funding
lower since, according to the those decisions, some of the
measures the Commission was intending to do away with
while reallocating the respective resources are to remain in
place.

3.6.
Having said this, the EESC feels that, although necess-
ary, the action plan does not address the concerns of entre-
preneurs and fishermen as it is too vague on some points and
lacks the necessary financial resourcing on others.

3.7.
In the action plan, the Commission revises downwards
its previous estimates of job losses from 28 000 to 12 000 over
a period of four years. In fact, after consulting the Member
States, the Commission concluded that it should consider job
losses due to the reform and those put down to ‘natural
wastage’ over the last few years as separate items. Meanwhile,
in view of the current difficulty in recruiting new workers in
the sector, some countries are seeing a labour shortage which
may absorb some of those made unemployed.

3.7.1.
Although the Council decisions may suggest a less
severe impact on employment, there isconsiderable uncertainty
about the real effect of the multiannual management plans.
The Commission also mentions that EU enlargement will
probably cause additional difficulties for employment in the
sector. The EESC calls on the Commission to earmark adequate
resources to cope with these difficulties and the well-known
shortfalls in technical resources, infrastructure and training.

3.7.2.
The drastic reductions imposed on cod and hake
catches in the North Sea will also have a major impact on

( 1) COM(2002) 181 final.

employment in the region to an extent which the Commission
could not predict and which has not therefore been taken into
account.

The EESC also notes that no allowance has been made
3.8.
for the possible impact of the measures proposed and/or
adopted on other sectors closely linked to fishing,
like
marketing, processing or
shipbuilding and repair. The
reduction in fishing activity, the number of ships and the
volumes of catches will have a considerable impact on these
sectors and the EESC urges that provision be made for
appropriate support measures. As mentioned earlier,
the
importance of fishing in certain communities is vital in terms
of economic and social cohesion and any imbalance can have
profound repercussions, both upstream and downstream. The
Commission itself recognises that in some communities the
only alternative to fishing may be unemployment or emi-
gration.

3.9.
Equally worrying is the scenario whereby fishermen
and vessels continue to operate, but fishing opportunities, in
terms of either the fishing days or quotas allowed, are so
limited that they spell bankruptcy in the short term. The EESC
feels there is a need for a serious and detailed debate on the
model to be implemented as regards fishing in Community
waters: the option for a small number of large, modern and
extremely economical vessels to the detriment of a proportion
of medium-sized vessels, which may be less profitable but
employ more labour, has to be questioned. This would lead in
time to the creation of monopolies and the possible privatisa-
tion of fishing resources, with quotas being traded. The EESC
cannot endorse this prospect.

3.10.
The EESC insists on the need to take action to clamp
down on IUU (illegal, unreported andunregulated) fishing
activity and that done by ships operating under flags of
convenience, including through import controls on fisheries
products, as well as leisure fisheries, so as to ensure uniform
and fair implementation of the Community rules.

3.11.
The Communication carries out an analysis of the
various existing Community funds which could be combined
to fund socio-economic measures. In addition to the pro-
grammes specific to the sector, such as FIFG, there are other
possibilities under the ERDF,
the EAGGF or the ESF, for
example.

3.12.
It is worth reiterating the view expressed earlier by
the EESC that, although it was not exploited to the full, while
it was operative,
the PESCA programme allowed greater
involvement by workers and businesses from the sector in that
it took a less remote approach and identified more with the
sector. In particular, given that some Member States have

C 208/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

decided not to institute specific social measures for the sector,
it would be useful to devise a new programme allowing all
workers in the sector direct access to social support measures.

The aquaculture sector has development potential
3.13.
which should be exploited in all
its aspects, especially as
regards job creation, as it can absorb some of the workers
forced to give up working at sea. Fiscal and other measures
should be adopted to promote this process (1).

3.14.
The Committee also notes that the Commission bases
its proposals on the reprogramming of funds already allocated
to the Member States which could no longer be used as a
result of the restrictive measures proposed in the May package.
However, in the light of the Council’s decision not to accept
all the cuts proposed by the Commission,
it will be more
to reprogramme some of these funds for socio-
difficult
economic measures. In addition, some Member States have
already earmarked a sizeable portion of these funds for fleet
renewal measures. The EESC feels that a sustained framework
of support for the sector and workers in it will only be possible
by increasing FIFG resources and creating a specific support
line for social questions.

3.15.
In this respect, the EESC applauds the European
Parliament’s initiative to propose to the budget authority and
the Commission the adoption of an action plan to compensate
for the consequences of measures to recover cod stocks and
the earmarking of an extra EUR 150 million in funds.

3.16.
The Commission addresses the situation of those who
will remain in the sector under the heading ‘Further options,
for the longer term’: a possible broadening of the FIFG to
support measures aimed at reducing the level of dependency
of coastal communities on fishing, support for small-scale
fishing, improving the image of the sector, increasing women’s
involvement in associated activities and enhancing their role,
better assessment of the dependency of certain regions on

( 1) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

Brussels, 14 May 2003.

fishing and some thoughts on the future of structural policy
for the sector after 2006. The EESC endorses this approach,
urging the Commission and the Member States to implement
the necessary measures as soon as possible.

Once again the Commission mentions that

3.16.1.
it
intends to consult the social partners, particularly through the
Social Dialogue Committee, on measures intended to improve
working conditions and live aboard ship. It should be pointed
out here that, although the Communication was published
with no prior consultation of that Committee, the social
partners did adopt a common position in November 2002
which presented a number of concrete proposals in this
respect. The EESC recommends that this contribution from
the social partners be duly taken into consideration and that
they be involved from the very start of the decision-making
process, at both European and regional and local level.

3.16.2.
Such cooperation will be essential for improving
the image of the sector, which, as the Commission advocates,
must involve greater safety, more concern for the environment,
and the introduction of gainful forms of employment to give
young people stable prospects and greater job security.

3.16.3.
The Commission also states that it intends to review
the legislation in force to improve working conditions and
social protection in the sector. The EESC welcomes this
intention which it has been calling for for quite some time. In
particular, a greater commitment by the Member States to the
ratification of the STCW-F Convention and the Protocol to the
Torremolinos Convention would be desirable.

3.17.
The EESC also feels that some consideration should
be given to ways of utilising the knowledge and experience of
workers who give up fishing, particularly in training and
cooperation projects with non-EU countries.

3.18.
Finally, the Commission should launch a debate on
measures to improve the use of Community support with a
view to bettering social conditions in the sector. Access to
these funds should be conditional upon compliance with
minimum social standards common to the whole sector.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH