Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture"
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, sustainable development

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/29

2.14.
intends to fully assume its role as a link with and
mouthpiece for local and regional authorities so as to ensure
respect for the traditions and specific features of their regions
and help to reduce the current democratic deficit;

— helping to inform citizens;

— facilitating their participation in decision-making;

— developing participatory democracy;

considers that it must be able to make a specific
2.15.
contribution to the construction of a genuine European
citizenship by:

2.16.
calls on the next intergovernmental conference to
grant it the necessary powers and responsibilities and declares
that it is ready to exercise them to help improve European
governance.

Brussels, 2 July 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

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

(2003/C 256/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to 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);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 22 October 2002, under the first paragraph
of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on the matter;

having regard to the decision taken by its President on 23 September 2002 to instruct the Commission
for Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable
Development (COM(2001) 264) final;

having regard to the document of the Sub-Committee on Aquaculture of the FAO’s Committee on
Fisheries following its meeting in Beijing, China on 18-22 April 2002;

having regard to its Opinion of 14 November 2001 on the Green Paper on the future of the Common
Fisheries Policy (COM(2001) 135 final) — CdR 153/2001 fin (1);

having regard to its Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation
of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (COM(1999) 55 final — 1999/0047 (CNS)) — CdR
182/1999 fin (2);

having regard to its Opinion on:

— the Communication from the Commission on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

(‘Roadmap’) (COM(2002) 181 final — 2002/2174 (COS)) — CdR 189/2002 fin (3),

(1) OJ C 107 of 3.5.2002, p. 44.
(2) OJ C 374 of 23.12.1999, p. 71.
(3) OJ C 128 of 29.5.2003, p. 6.

C 256/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

— the Communication from the Commission — Community action plan for the eradication of illegal,

unreported and unregulated fishing (COM(2002) 180 final — 2002/2176 (COS)),

— the Proposal for a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries

resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 185 final — 2002/0114 (CNS)),

— the Communication from the Commission setting out a Community Action Plan to integrate
environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2002) 186 final —
2002/2175 (COS)),

— the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the
detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector
(COM(2002) 187 final — 2002/0116 (CNS)),

— and the Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for

scrapping fishing vessels (COM(2002) 190 final — 2002/0115 (CNS));

whereas Community aquaculture helps supply the EU fishery products market, which has an increasing
deficit, with high-quality products characterised by their level of food safety and hygiene, and their
compliance with the highest environmental requirements;

whereas the market must be seen as a key factor in the development of aquaculture in a context of
sustainable development;

whereas public authorities need to contribute towards the positive image and promotion of Community
aquaculture;

whereas the highest standards of quality, safety and respect for the environment are necessary in order to
secure the development, competitiveness and sustainability of the sector;

whereas the interaction between aquaculture and the environment is generally positive in the case of
extensive fish culture, while where intensive aquaculture is concerned there is a general need to adopt
environmental protection measures;

whereas aquaculture development must be a key factor in the planning and overall management of
Community coastal areas;

whereas development in the sector brings a need to speed up administrative procedures as far as possible,
by establishing flexible systems for issuing permits while still ensuring strict compliance with legislation
on quality, safety, hygiene and the environment;

whereas the extensive legislation on safety, animal health and environmental protection needs to be
continually updated and poses a serious obstacle to investment for small enterprises;

whereas there is a need for specific instruments for traceability and to measure toxicity, harmonised at
EU level, to ensure that the sector develops correctly, but at the same time preventing excessive
precautions that could jeopardise the viability of many companies;

whereas the development of the Community aquaculture market needs to be seen as an ongoing process,
i.e. account must be taken of potential developments in this market owing to the development at
Community level of marketing instruments or the strengthening of producers’ organisations;

whereas it is absolutely essential for the viability of the sector that checks are carried out — with the same
thoroughness as with Community products — to ensure that all products entering the EU market,
whether from candidate countries or third countries, comply with Community legislation;

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/31

whereas the main forms of aquaculture — including continental aquaculture, which is hardly mentioned
in the Commission Communication — must be properly described;

whereas it is essential that the criteria for distinguishing between extensive and intensive aquaculture are
clearly defined;

whereas extensive aquaculture, including shellfishing, makes a positive contribution to the economy,
employment and the planning of integrated management of sustainable economic activities in coastal
areas, as well as reducing harmful effects or even having a positive environmental
impact on its
surroundings;

whereas the development of the individual market for each aquaculture product needs to be analysed in-
depth to prevent erroneous diagnoses being made;

whereas aquaculture not only supplies the Community market with fishery products in which it has a
deficit, but also creates new job opportunities in coastal areas that often lack other alternatives;

whereas there is a general consensus regarding the current insufficiency of Community R&D funding and,
in particular, the considerable R&D needs of Community aquaculture;

whereas FIFG funding has helped develop new species, but is not enough in some cases to meet the rate
at which demand for them is growing;

whereas the dependence of aquaculture on fish oils and fishmeal could lead to bottlenecks during its
development, especially in the light of the expected reduction in this type of industrial fisheries owing to
its negative effects on stocks of species intended for human consumption;

whereas aquaculture offers a clear alternative for promoting the protection and development of the rural
economy, especially in coastal areas affected by adjustments in fishing fleet capacity;

whereas aquaculture may complement fishing activity and production, but can by no means replace it;

whereas aquaculture is an integral part of the current Common Fisheries Policy (CFP);

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 20/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 28 April 2003 by its Commission
for Sustainable Development (Rapporteur: Mr Gamallo Aller, Secretary-General for relations with the EU
and external cooperation, Autonomous Community of Galicia) (E-EPP);

adopted the following opinion at its 50th plenary session of 2 and 3 July 2003 (meeting of 2 July).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

statement if aquaculture is intended to provide the main
alternative for people who have lost their jobs in the extractive
fisheries sector.

The CoR warmly welcomes the Commission’s initiative
1.1.
to devote a communication exclusively to an analysis of
aquaculture as part of CFP reform,
thereby clearly dis-
tinguishing it from the fisheries sector.

1.2.
The CoR urges the Commission to step up funding for
aquaculture development at Community level, the effects of
which have in general been very positive in terms of both
market supply and the sustainable economic development of
coastal areas.

The CoR believes it

to clarify that
1.3.
aquaculture is not an alternative to the fisheries sector, but a
this is a particularly worrying
complement to it.

is important

Indeed,

1.4.
The Commission rightly states that the market has to
be the driving force of aquaculture development. The CoR
agrees with the Commission that private investors are the
leading force for progress and must ensure economic viability,
while the public authorities must ensure that economic
viability goes hand in hand with respect for the environment
and product quality. Here the CoR calls for a more systematic
study of market trends and capacity, and of possible market
gluts, and for the findings to be disseminated among the
sector’s operators.

C 256/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

1.5.
The CoR agrees with the Commission that the funda-
mental issue is maintaining the competitiveness, productivity
and sustainability of the aquaculture sector. The CoR therefore
calls on the Commission to establish or strengthen the
necessary market mechanisms to enable the sector to compete
under equal conditions in a globalised market, in particular by
ensuring that all aquaculture products, whether from inside or
outside the Community, meet the same guarantees in terms of
quality and respect for the environment.

The challenges

organisation (CMO) for aquaculture products before pub-
lishing new regulations on aquaculture.

1.11.
The CoR also urges the Commission to consider
dividing the current Advisory Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture into two — an Advisory Committee on Fisheries
and an Advisory Committee on Aquaculture — as the two
sectors face very different issues and only really share the
market. The fact that these two areas are separate at advisory
level in the Member States is a powerful argument used by the
sector in this context.

1.6.
The Commission considers that the main challenge
must be to encourage the economic viability of Community
aquaculture. The CoR shares this view and believes that
priority must be given to economically sustainable aquaculture
development offering high-quality products and environmen-
tal protection guarantees.

1.12.
The CoR agrees with the Commission that public
support through the FIFG has proven to be insufficient, as
costs are still too high for the ‘poor’ aquaculture subsectors
and it is almost impossible, for example, to finance trans-
national campaigns to promote aquaculture.

1.7.
The Commission argues that various forms of ‘environ-
ment friendly’ aquaculture (whether marine or continental
aquaculture) need additional support and specific labelling
relating to the area of origin or the feeding regime.

The CoR therefore calls on the Commission to boost the
financial resources allocated to the planned development of
extensive, ecological and environment-friendly aquaculture,
and to establish the necessary measures to introduce certifi-
cation and ecological labelling at Community level. The CoR
therefore believes it is necessary to introduce firm support for
extensive aquaculture, with no other limitations than those of
the market, as there is solid evidence of its positive impact.

1.8.
The CoR welcomes the Commission’s initiative to step
up research into alternative protein sources to replace fish oils
and fishmeal
in aquaculture feeds, to prevent bottlenecks
during the future development of the sector. It also considers
that analyses should be conducted in order to verify the
presence of certain substances (e.g. Omega 3) in the compo-
sition of future alternative feed sources for aquaculture prod-
ucts.

that

The Commission believes

1.9.
the challenge of
developing offshore cage technology will give new impetus to
Community aquaculture development. The CoR calls on the
Commission to provide the necessary financial resources in
the form of start-up and research funding to facilitate such
development, within a framework of integrated coastal zone
management.

1.10.
The CoR calls on the Commission to present a report
on the case for setting up a separate common market

1.13.
The CoR believes it is essential to safeguard food
safety and support the tightening-up and harmonisation of
checks in all Member States, inter alia by means of checks by
Community bodies. It therefore welcomes the Commission’s
intention to update Community legislation and take the
necessary measures to ensure product quality and prevent the
kind of crises that have affected other food sectors.

1.14.
The Commission considers it evident that the Com-
munity’s aquaculture development strategy must be consistent
with sustainable development strategies. The CoR welcomes
this approach and stresses the need to step up R&D programme
funding at Community level in the area of integrated coastal
zone management, in particular environmental protection.

The CoR believes it would be a good idea to adopt an aid
strategy that requires the highest quality and environmental
protection standards and that can therefore be co-financed
by specific funding under the FIFG and Community R&D
programmes. Community aid should ease the burden of setting
up new companies and help these new companies compete
with imported aquaculture products.

1.15.
The CoR believes that priority must be given to
competitiveness so that Community products can compete in
the emerging aquaculture market, not only in terms of price
and quality, but also by offering environmental protection
guarantees that are financially supported by the relevant
FIFG funding, and by clearly indicating the product’s origin
(Community or otherwise) at all stages of processing.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/33

The CoR believes it is particularly important

1.16.
for
funding to reflect the positive assessment of extensive aquacul-
ture and the ‘ecological’ re-stocking of species. Similar attention
should be paid to the ‘ecological’ re-stocking of indigenous
species in rivers and lakes, inter alia in the context of wider
rural development and rural tourism programmes.

1.20.
The CoR also stresses that aquaculture should be
eligible for assistance under the Regulation on support for
is clear that
rural development from the EAGGF, as it
aquaculture installations can help maintain populations, in
particular in the Community’s outermost areas and in the
Objective 1 areas of structural policy.

1.17.
The CoR calls on the Commission to make a clear
commitment by authorising the relevant budget lines so as to
in particular regarding the
meet R&D investment needs,
development of new species, and also encompass research in
areas, such as pharmaceuticals, that are not addressed by
private initiative owing to the initial limitations of the market
and the sector.

1.21.
The CoR calls on the Commission to consider the
case for setting up a CMO for aquaculture products as a
framework for meeting the challenges facing it in the markets
— in particular, with regard to the setting-up of producers’
organisations and the need for instruments for regulating the
market. Such instruments would be designed to act as safety
mechanisms in the event of severe temporary imbalances
caused, for example, by large-scale imports through illegal
market practices such as dumping.

Objectives

1.18.
The CoR does not entirely agree with the Com-
mission’s approach concerning the objectives of Community
aquaculture. The CoR believes that priority must be given to
achieving the sustainable development of the sector. While the
economic dimension of sustainability is mainly the concern
of the private sector, responsibility for the environmental
dimension of sustainability must be shared with the Com-
munity authorities. The CoR believes the latter could play a
key role regarding the competitiveness of Community products
by promoting instruments such as certification, and quality
and environmental labelling.

1.19. While the CoR endorses the Commission’s objective
of creating long-term secure employment, in particular in
fisheries-dependent areas, it does not believe it is wise to see
Community aquaculture development as a way of remedying
some of the negative consequences of the crisis in the fishing
industry. Stepping up efforts to ensure natural, sustainable
supplies of our wild fish species is, of course, a top priority.
Aquaculture cannot compensate for a collapse of the fishing
industry, whether in terms of food production or employment.

However,
the CoR calls on the Commission to present
specific Community-funded initiatives that promote R&D in
aquaculture, the setting-up of new companies, the farming of
new species and integrated coastal zone management and,
above all, that properly develop market aspects, a key issue
for Community aquaculture development. The harmonious
development of Community aquaculture — while not claiming
to be the solution to the crisis in the extractive fishing industry
— will have a considerable impact on the economy in
Community coastal areas, in particular by regenerating fish-
eries-dependent areas that are affected by this crisis.

1.22.
The CoR endorses the Commisison’s objectives for
food quality and safety, and compliance with environmental
legislation by the sector. However, it calls on the Commission
to make the corresponding commitments, taking as a starting
point the fact that it bears the main responsibility for ensuring
safety and compliance with Community legislation, and for
introducing the relevant checks. The CoR therefore believes it
is essential to draw up major incentives in terms of co-
funding and support for compliance with food quality and
environmental legislation.

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The Commission’s proposed general action of increas-
2.1.
ing production is not very fitting as the various Community
aquaculture subsectors and products face different cyclical and
structural situations and in some cases do not require measures
intended to increase production, as subsequently argued by
the Commission itself. The CoR therefore proposes that the
Commission establish measures that encourage the competi-
tive development of Community aquaculture and meet the
growing demand for aquaculture products — owing, inter alia,
to stagnation in the supply of caught fish — in a market that
has a serious deficit in Community products.

2.2.
At all events, the CoR calls on the Commission to
make a financial commitment that is consistent with the
challenges facing Community aquaculture. The objectives
established must be accompanied by the corresponding public
co-funding, primarily in the area of monitoring, training,
and research and development of farming technologies, in
particular clean technologies.

C 256/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.10.2003

2.3.
The Commission’s priorities in terms of new species,
alternative protein sources for fish feed and the promotion of
ecologically beneficial aquaculture must be properly reflected
in actions co-funded by the Structural Funds and Community
R&D programmes. Likewise, consideration must be given
to support for processing and marketing — in particular
certification and designations of origin — so that funding is, at
the very least, proportional to aid received by the Community
agriculture sector.

2.9.
The CoR asks the Commission to set up a separate
Advisory Committee on Aquaculture. In this context, the CoR
urges the Commission to analyse the impact of enlargement
on the functioning of the Advisory Committee. It also calls on
the Commission to simplify and update legislation governing
aquaculture.

The CoR considers that FIFG structural funding for
2.4.
aquaculture development should be clearly distinguished. In
particular, the unhindered development of extensive aquacul-
ture should be encouraged.

2.10.
The chapters on public health and animal health lack
specific proposals, in particular for certification and labelling
schemes. The CoR calls on the Commission to conduct an
epidemiological study at Community level and to assess the
impact on Community aquaculture production of declaring
whether areas are free or not from given diseases.

2.5.
The CoR calls on the Commission to provide the
Community aquaculture sector with an economic crisis mech-
anism to enable it to overcome natural disasters (such as red
tides and toxic algal blooms) and man-made disasters (such as
oil spills).

2.6.
The CoR fully supports the measures proposed by the
Commission to ease the space restrictions affecting aquacul-
ture. This activity must play a key role in the integrated
management of Community coastal areas.

The CoR calls for financial resources to be made available for
R&D to help prevent further crises like those relating to
excessive levels of dioxin, as well as for the detection of
harmful substances, the replacement of antibiotics by vaccines,
and research into red tides and harmful algal blooms. Funding
should therefore be provided for research programmes to
ensure the sustainable development of both continental and
marine aquaculture.

2.7.
The CoR calls on the Commission to analyse in greater
depth those aspects relating to the marketing of aquaculture
products. It therefore asks it to present a report on the case for
regulating specific aspects by means of a common market
organisation for aquaculture products, and an assessment of
the advisability of setting up such a CMO, before approving
new regulations in this area.

2.11.
The CoR welcomes the Commission’s concern to
improve the public image of intensive aquaculture, in particular
concerning animal welfare. Accordingly, the CoR welcomes
the Commission’s legislative initiatives on the protection of
farmed fish, with the proviso that these must include actions
and support to help bring fish farms into line without causing
serious economic problems for their owners.

At all events, the CoR believes there is a need for price
regulation measures, market intervention mechanisms in the
event of serious imbalances, and incentives and instruments to
regulate supply and encourage members of the sector to join
producers’ organisations. The CoR also believes it is important
for the Commission to introduce new rules for the recognition
of producers’ organisations that are adjusted to the aquaculture
sector, and that ensure that all sizes of producer firms are
properly represented.

2.8.
The Communication’s chapter on training is limited to
a brief introduction of the subject. The CoR considers training
to be a particularly important element for aquaculture develop-
ment and therefore calls on the Commission, in coordination
with the Member States, to present a summary of the basic
needs of Community aquaculture in the area of vocational,
university and ongoing training, accompanied by proposals to
improve, adapt and help finance such training at Community
level. The CoR also asks the Commission to include this
chapter in the budget lines eligible for EAGGF funding for
rural and coastal development.

2.12.
The CoR supports the Commission’s decision to study
interactions between aquaculture and the environment, and
the environmental measures and actions proposed. The CoR
highlights the Commission’s invitation to the Member States
to recognise the positive role of extensive fish farming. The
CoR also calls on the Commission to introduce Community
funding to promote the re-stocking of species from local
broodstock at Community level.

The CoR urges the Commission to make the financial
2.13.
commitment needed to meet the proposed objectives. In this
connection, it welcomes the increase in research funding for
companies and calls on the Commission to ensure that the
considerable R&D needs of aquaculture are properly specified
in future Community Framework Programmes, in particular
with regard to the development of new species and new
technologies.

24.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/35

2.14.
The CoR calls for an increase in FIFG funding to
promote the consumption of Community aquaculture prod-
ucts and, in particular, for an information campaign to be
launched to answer any questions or doubts that consumers
may have concerning the quality, safety and compliance with
environmental
legislation of EU aquaculture products. A
specific designation and labelling should also be introduced so
as to distinguish Community products.

2.15.
The CoR warmly welcomes the Commission’s explicit
intention to play a decisive role in the economically and
environmentally sustainable development of Community
aquaculture, respecting the strictest environmental and quality
standards. To this end,
the CoR thinks that schemes for
recovering and exploiting aquaculture-related energy (e.g. from
falling water, biogas or heat) should be supported both
financially and by simplifying the relevant administrative
procedures.

2.16.
By the same token the CoR asks the Commission to
submit, with the legislative measures it adopts, the correspond-
ing budgetary allocations for boosting the development of a
strategic subsector which has an enormous potential positive
impact on the Community’s coastal regions, and which is the
the
subject of a common policy. The CoR thinks that
expectations which the communication has raised in the
Community aquaculture sector must not be disappointed,
bearing in mind the important role which the sector is called
on to play in the integrated planning of the Community’s
coastal regions and in the supply of fishery products of which
the Community has a serious deficit.

2.17.
The CoR asks the Commission to adapt the current
market measures to the aquaculture sector. Before adopting
new measures in the sector, it asks the Commission to submit
an assessment of the case for establishing a common market
organisation for aquaculture products, with the specific aim of
guaranteeing these products a safety net in the event of serious
market imbalance. The fact that some of the sector’s products
also appear in Annex V of the basic market regulation (Council
Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000) denies them access to certain
safeguard measures enjoyed by other fisheries products. At all
events, the CoR considers that the current potential and the
future development of Community aquaculture amply justify
such measures and the corresponding budgetary allocations,

Brussels, 2 July 2003.

as occurs with other less socio-economically important prod-
ucts (e.g. tobacco) which have their own common market
organisation.

2.18.
Lastly, the CoR asks the Commission to exercise the
requisite competences regarding the aquaculture sector by
providing the budgetary measures needed to meet the Com-
munity-level challenges mentioned in the communication. In
particular, the Commission should undertake to:

— provide financial support for the development of Com-
munity aquaculture, without eating into the budget
allocated to the fisheries sector;

— give a decisive boost to the development of extensive

aquaculture;

— co-finance development of the cultivation of new species,

with new funds;

— use the Community budget to support the modernisation
of installations, the development of clean technologies,
and adjustments to meet the highest environmental and
safety standards;

— provide financial incentives for the processing, marketing,
certification and labelling of Community aquaculture
products;

— promote Community aquaculture products by estab-
lishing and developing the certification instruments most
appropriate for each case, and financing promotional
campaigns at Community level;

— step up controls on imported aquaculture products and
establish the requisite safeguard instruments in cases
where there is a risk of severe disruption of the market in
Community products;

— include, when the time comes, a priority heading within
the Community’s R&D framework programme to meet
research demands in the aquaculture sector;

— step up the integrated management of the Community’s

coastal areas;

— co-finance the adaptation and improvement of training

in aquaculture.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE