Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture" (COM(2002) 511 final)
Date: 2003-05-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aquaculture, consumer protection, environmental protection, job creation, sustainable development

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/89

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A strategy for the sustainable
development of European aquaculture’

(COM(2002) 511 final)

(2003/C 208/21)

On 22 October 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 Mrs Santiago.

At its 399th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2003 (meeting of 15 May) the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 82 votes to 8 with 10 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

human consumption, monitoring the use of antibiotics and
assessing the risks associated with harmful algal blooms.

1.1.
The Commission’s communication proposes a strategy
for the sustainable development of European aquaculture that
is designed to:

— create secure employment, particularly in fisheries-depen-

dent areas;

— assure the availability of safe, healthy products in suf-

ficient quantity to meet market demand;

— ensure an environmentally sound industry.

To achieve this, the Commission proposes various

1.2.
measures:

1.2.1.
Expansion of production, by further promoting
research into new species and alternative protein sources
for fish feed. Promotion of organic, environment-friendly
aquaculture, by laying down specific Community standards
and rules.

1.2.2.
ise existing farms.

Public aid for aquaculture, inter alia to help modern-

1.2.3.
Environmental protection, by finding ways of reduc-
ing the impact of waste from intensive farms, e.g. by installing
effluent treatment equipment. Caution is to be exercised with
regard to the introduction of non-native species, and the
possibility of establishing specific rules on transgenic fish will
be considered.

— The welfare of

farmed animals is now a matter of
particular public concern. The Standing Committee of
the European Convention for the Protection of Animals
kept for Farming Purposes (Council of Europe) is currently
drawing up a recommendation on farmed fish, and
Commission departments are taking part in this work.

Creation of secure,

long-term jobs, particularly in
1.2.5.
fisheries-dependent areas, by increasing employment by
between 8 000 and 10 000 jobs,
increasing the Union’s
aquaculture production growth rate to 4 % per year, opening
new markets,
integrating production and marketing, and
stimulating demand for quality products.

2. General comments

2.1.
In drawing up its first document on a sustainable
development strategy for European aquaculture, the Com-
mission has recognised the importance of aquaculture within
the common fisheries policy. This is a commendable and
essential step, as the sector faces a number of problems to
which it has already drawn attention on various occasions. In
this connection it is worth noting the conclusions of the
regional meetings which the Commission arranged in
1998 and 1999 (1) on the common fisheries policy after 2002.
Interested Member States:

Safety of aquaculture products and animal welfare,
1.2.4.
to ensure a high level of protection of consumer health, inter
alia by enforcing the maximum limits for dioxins in foods for

(1) Commission Report COM(2000) 14 final, 24.1.2000.

C 208/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

— considered that aquaculture was the poor relation of the

common fisheries policy;

— again criticised the lack of support from the Commission;

— urged the Commission to put aquaculture on the same

footing as the fisheries sector;

— warned of the problem of enlargement, which would
bring cheaper products whose production is subject to
less stringent environmental, quality and health require-
ments, particularly as regards residues of medicinal
products.

friendly aquaculture, as for instance some extensive fish
culture, deserve favourable attention, including the develop-
ment of specific labels. The research into and development of
environmentally friendly production techniques should be
encouraged,
for instance through support co-financed by
FIFG.’

The EESC also takes note of the Committee of the

2.6.
Regions’ Opinion on aquaculture (3).

2.2.
The present Commission document, which merits
support, goes some way towards addressing these short-
comings.

3. Specific comments

2.3.
The Committee agrees that aquaculture provides an
important supplement to traditional sources of fisheries prod-
ucts and helps to reduce the Community’s chronic trade deficit
in fisheries products.

3.1.
Product safety: The EESC endorses the objective of
informing consumers that aquaculture products are of high
quality and meet the relevant production, food safety and
traceability standards so that they are given an objective
picture of this still rather unfamiliar sector.

2.3.1.
The Committee stresses the role of aquaculture as an
alternative source of income for coastal communities, and in
helping to ensure a healthy and balanced diet.

The Committee considers it essential that the sector
2.3.2.
should be able to develop in a balanced manner, without
impairing the environment or the quality and safety of the end
product.

2.4.
However, the Committee thinks that the Commission
is being a little optimistic in anticipating that ‘in the next ten
years aquaculture must reach the status of a stable industry
which guarantees long term secure employment and develop-
ment in rural and coastal areas, providing alternatives to the
fishing industry, both in terms of products and employ-
ment’ (1).

2.5.
The Committee welcomes the Council Conclusions on
a strategy for the sustainable development of European
aquaculture (2), notably when it ‘acknowledges the need to
ensure the economic viability and the competitiveness of the
aquaculture sector which has to remain a market-led activity,
and the important role of the industry in this context.’ And
also when it notes that ‘different forms of special environment

The specific legislation governing aquaculture prod-
3.1.1.
ucts, particularly as regards production and packaging con-
ditions, guarantees that they are safe.

3.1.2.
The Committee shares the Commission’s views
regarding the quality of the products obtained from extensive
aquaculture, and the need for appropriate labelling to give
such products a commercial advantage. However, the absence
of a specific definition of intensive and extensive systems could
raise doubts among consumers as to the provenance and
labelling of products.

3.1.3.
The use of transgenic fish must be treated with
serious reservations: the Committee would warn not only
researchers, but also political decision-makers, producers and
consumers not to underestimate the risk of a loss of biodiv-
ersity.

3.1.4.
Fish imports from third countries must be subject to
rigorous quality checks, with details of any pharmaceutical
products used in their production. The analytical methods
used in these checks by the Member States should also be
harmonised.

( 1) COM(2002) 511 final.
( 2) 2481st Council meeting — AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES —
Brussels, 27 and 28.1.2003 — Press: 13 Nr: 5433/03, pages 11-
12.

(3) CdR 20/2003 COM-DEVE/014.

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/91

3.1.5.
A clear definition of organic aquaculture must be
provided, as has already been done in other sectors of
production. This form of aquaculture is practised by small
family-run farms, generally in the less advantaged regions. To
make up for their modest output and higher production costs,
such farms will be able to offer a special quality product,
which could raise a higher price on niche markets.

Environment and rural development: Competition for
3.2.
space in coastal areas, which are already congested with other
activities such as tourism, could be eased by the use of offshore
technology.

3.2.1.
This technology would require a high level of
investment, and bad weather or accidents could lead to safety
lines becoming damaged or even detached. Risk insurance
would have to be available as otherwise the use of offshore
techniques would be limited.

3.2.2.
Producers are increasingly using closed-circuit water
recycling systems. These systems should be upgraded by
deploying new environmentally-friendly technologies. They
are particularly recommended for inland aquaculture and for
aquaculture in protected coastal areas.

3.2.3.
Some aquaculture production systems use advanced
technology, and many farmers state that after treatment on
their farms the water is of a higher quality than it was at the
point of entry.

3.2.4.
Some Member States lay down stricter environmental
requirements than the Community. This leads to significant
differences between producers and may distort competition
between producers and Member States.

The Committee appreciates

such environmental
3.2.5.
awareness and considers that these producers deserve incen-
tives to promote products that meet stricter ecological pro-
duction requirements. It would imagine that a system could be
introduced in the field of aquaculture to promote particular
environmental objectives, along similar lines to environmental
programmes in agriculture.

3.2.6.
of aquaculture and other forms of rural development.

A balance must be struck between the development

3.3.
Research: Research is vital for the sector’s development,
and the Committee regrets that funding for it has been
reduced in the Community Support Framework. To offset this
reduction, the FIFG should be amended to allow SMEs to
conduct their own research, as under the previous framework.
In this regard,
the Council
recognises in its conclusions that ‘more research in aquaculture
should be undertaken and appropriate financial support
be allocated,
to contribute towards sustainable
development of the aquaculture industry in the Community’.
The EESC believes that alongside pure research, applied
research that is targeted towards producers’ needs should also
be promoted.

the Committee stresses that

in order

3.3.1.
Research should be carried out on the effects of fish
farms on wild stocks, in particular relating to disease and
interbreeding, special attention being paid to the effects on
tourism in rural areas based in angling.

3.3.2.
market, research on new species should be encouraged.

Given the possible glut of certain fish species on the

3.3.3.
Research should also be conducted on feed, using
alternative raw materials to those generally used and continu-
ing the search for less polluting types of feed. Research should
also continue on systems for managing feed supply more
effectively, so as to cause less damage to the environment.

3.3.4.
The Committee thinks that a socio-economic survey
of coastal communities and their relation with the aquaculture
sector should be conducted, as in some areas the sector forms
the main source of employment and also provides jobs for
former fishermen.

3.4.
Employment: In order to achieve the intended increase
in employment, the priorities of the FIFG will have to be
revised. At all events, the Committee is somewhat sceptical
about the anticipated increase, as a rise in production does not
necessarily mean an increase in the number of jobs.

3.4.1. Many jobs in the sector are of a seasonal or temporary
nature, and steps must be taken to ensure that new jobs are
sustainable. Given the need for specialist training in this
field, continuing vocational training is extremely important.
Particular attention should be paid here to the role of women
in aquaculture.

C 208/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2003

3.5. Market: Although the EU’s aquaculture sector accounts
for just 3 % of world production, the EU is the leading
producer of such species as trout, sea bass, sea bream, turbot
and mussels.

3.5.1.
As the sector has developed very rapidly, the pro-
duction of certain species has increased, thereby destabilising
market prices.

3.5.2.
In order to improve the sector’s image, campaigns
are needed — preferably at Community level — to inform
consumers and encourage them to eat aquaculture products.

3.5.3.
link in the chain,
cooperation through producer organisations and cooperatives

As producers are the crucial

is vital in order to develop the market, bring stability and
organise supply.

3.5.4.
The Committee considers that cooperation between
the authorities, the scientific community and duly organised
producers could also do much to help solve the problems
facing the sector.

3.5.5.
The Committee endorses the Commission document
and welcomes the fact that the Council, together with the
Commission, will undertake to examine and implement appro-
priate initiatives which fall within Community competence, so
that the Community can play a leading role in developing a
sustainable aquaculture sector to the benefit of all citizens in
the Community (1).

(1) COM(2002) 511 final.

Brussels, 15 May 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

3.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/93

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the debate:

Point 2.3.1

Amend as follows:

‘3.5.6.
communities, and in helping to ensure a healthy and balanced diet.’

The Committee stresses the potential role of aquaculture as an alternative source of income for coastal

Reason

Aquaculture can also have a negative impact on the employment situation in that it threatens jobs in the traditional
fisheries sector.

Aquaculture does not specifically help to ensure a healthy and balanced diet.

Result of the vote

For: 24, against: 50, abstentions: 12.

Point 3.2.3

Delete the point:

‘Some aquaculture production systems use advanced technology, and many farmers state that after treatment on
their farms the water is of a higher quality than it was at the point of entry.’

Reason

It can happen that,
in specific individual cases, certain water quality parameters show an improvement after
treatment. This is not an argument in favour of aquaculture, but rather an indictment of the state of the water before
use. The opposite case is presumably far more frequent, which is one of the reasons why the Commission submitted
this Communication (cf. point 1.2.3). Also, it is not up to the EESC to evaluate producers’ claims, but rather to assess
the Commission document.

Result of the vote

For: 30, against: 48, abstentions: 11.