Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulations (EC) No. 2847/93 and (EC) No. 973/2001’ (COM(2003) 589 final -2003/0229 (CNS))
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing controls, fishing net, fishing regulations, recreational fishing

C 110/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regu-
lation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in
the Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulations (EC) No. 2847/93 and (EC) No. 973/2001’

(COM(2003) 589 final -2003/0229 (CNS))

(2004/C 110/17)

On 16 December 2003, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal

On 27 January 2004, the Bureau of the European Economic and Social Committee instructed the Section
for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment to prepare its work on the subject.

In view of the urgency of the matter, the Committee appointed Mr Sarró Iparraguirre as rapporteur-general
at its 406th plenary session held on 25 and 26 February 2004 (meeting of 26 February). The opinion was
adopted by 63 votes to two, with three abstentions.

1. Introduction

fixing certain conditions
for catches of highly migratory
species; and establishing certain provisions for the waters
around Malta.

The proposal for a regulation (1) is intended to amend
1.1.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1626/94 of 27 June 1994 laying
down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery
resources in the Mediterranean (2), taking into account the main
points of the Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament laying down a Com-
munity Action Plan for the conservation and sustainable exploi-
tation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean Sea under the
Common Fisheries Policy (3).

2. General comments

to include in this opinion the conclusions of

2.1
The EESC has stated its views on fisheries management
in the Mediterranean in previous opinions (6). We think it
helpful
the
Committee's 1998 opinion on management of fish stocks in
the Mediterranean, since these are relevant and important,
provide an overview of fishing in the Mediterranean and are
still completely valid:

1.2.
In the same context it proposes amendments to Council
Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing
a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (4)
and Council Regulation (EC) No. 973/2001 of 14 May 2001
laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of
certain stocks of highly migratory species. (5)

In its proposal for a Regulation - consisting of 26 reci-
1.3.
tals, eleven chapters and five annexes – the Commission recom-
mends a series of management measures for the sustainable
exploitation of
fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea.
These management measures consist in regulating protected
areas, species and habitats; laying down restrictions on fishing
gear; fixing minimum sizes for certain species; regulating non-
commercial fishing; making it possible to establish manage-
measures;
ment

introducing

control

plans;

(1) COM(2003) 589 final
(2) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 973/2001 (OJ L 137, 19.5.2001)

(3) OJ C 133, 6.6.2003
(4) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p.1.
(5) OJ L 137, 19.5.2001, p.1.

— The Mediterranean displays a number of specific features to
which management systems must be geared if they are to
be effective.

— The efficacy of management systems will also depend on

their fairness, thus preventing discrimination.

— Scientific research funding must be stepped up still further,
giving greater dynamism to the GFCM and making it the
leading body, but without neglecting scientific cooperation
through joint studies by Mediterranean countries.

— Situations clearly differ, requiring real and comprehensive
harmonization of Mediterranean fisheries. Harmonization
will only be possible following the gradual removal of all
the derogations contained in Regulation (EC) No 1626/94,
when not scientifically justified, with the same technical
measures applying to all fleets.

— The Committee would urge that fishermen be consulted on
the proposed legislation,
thereby involving them in its
application. This would give greater force to the proposal
made by the EU within the GFCM concerning the creation
of a committee on which fishermen would be directly
represented.

(6) OJ C 133, 6.6.2003

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/105

— Appropriate steps must be taken against producers who
infringe resource conservation rules. Responsible trade must
be encouraged so as to prevent the current unfair competi-
tion, particularly with regard to third country fleets.

— The establishment of protected fishery zones in the Mediter-
ranean is the type of measure capable of ensuring that
resource protection and conservation measures are effec-
tive.

— The diplomatic conferences must do more than issue
declarations of intent. There must be closer cooperation
between all the countries, working together at an early
stage to prepare conclusions which can be put into practice
immediately.

— Small-scale fishing must have priority over its industrial
counterpart in the transition to sustainable fishing in the
Mediterranean. The interests of the Mediterranean countries
should come before those of other countries.

2.2
In point 2.6 of Opinion CESE 402/2003, the Committee
notes: ‘Integrated fisheries management requires an analysis of
biological, economic and social aspects, appropriate manage-
ment instruments, and dialogue between the sector, the autho-
rities and the scientific community.’

2.3
In the Committee's view, the Commission's proposal for
a regulation neither fulfils the expectations raised by its action
plan (7) nor takes account of the guidelines set out by the
Committee in its two earlier opinions,
the following
reasons.

for

The Commission fails to set out the reasons for its
2.3.1
belief that Regulation (EC) No 1626/94 should be revised. The
EESC considers the measures introduced in that regulation to
have failed, because, among other things, many exceptions
were allowed, resulting in unequal treatment of different coun-
tries and sectors, which in turn has resulted in the absence of a
real common fisheries policy in the Mediterranean.

2.3.2
The Commission has not adequately justified the tech-
nical proposals presented from a scientific point of view. We
do not know which scientific and technical
the
Commission based its proposals on because no reference is
made to them.

studies

The Commission also fails once again to mention and
2.3.3
take account of the economic and social aspects of fishing in
the Mediterranean, omitting any reference to the potential
businesses,
impact

the measures

proposed

on

of

workers and coastal areas that are highly dependent on fishing.

2.3.4
The proposal for a regulation does not pay enough
attention to the role of management systems based on trade
regulation, nor does it mention problems relating to trade in
catches from vessels flying flags of convenience fishing illegally
in the Mediterranean. Moreover, there is no provision for a
mechanism to effectively ensure the safety of fish products.

2.3.5
The Commission does not highlight the importance of
increasing multilateral cooperation, through the GFCM (8), so
that rules fixed for the Community countries also apply to
fleets of third countries fishing in the Mediterranean Sea.

The EESC therefore asks the Commission to strengthen the role
of FAO regional projects such as COPEMED and ADRIAMED.

2.3.6
The Commission merely adjusts existing technical
measures, making them more restrictive, without providing for
possible innovative alternatives by exploring more selective
mechanisms.

2.4 Negative aspects of the proposal for a regulation

Of the eleven chapters of the regulation, those displaying nega-
tive aspects are analysed first.

2.4.1 With regard to Chapter IV, restrictions concerning
fishing gears, the EESC would point out the following:

the articles

The wording of

2.4.1.1
is ambiguous and
confused and leaves the door open to exceptions which could
once again cause the measures to fail by not reflecting a true
common fisheries policy. The EESC considers that the articles
should be more clearly worded and exceptions eliminated,
pending measures harmonised in the European Union and
capable of harmonisation with non-EU countries involved in
fishing in the Mediterranean.

2.4.1.2
The definition of the various kinds of fishing gear is
confused. The areas regulated in accordance with international
standards, e.g. the FAO's 1980 ISCFG, (9) should be defined, at
least distinguishing towed gears and encircling nets from
smaller gear. Similarly, the various towed nets should be regu-
lated separately so that the general measures provided for trawl
nets do not affect others, such as seines, which are local in
character.

2.4.1.3
The document does not include drift nets among
prohibited fishing gear and practices. The Committee considers
that drift nets, especially those designed for catching highly
migratory species, should be specifically included in the list of
prohibited fishing gear.

(7) OJ C 133, 6.6.2003

(8) General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
(9) International Standard Classification Fishing Gears.

C 110/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.4.1.4 With regard to minimum mesh sizes, the proposals
are not based on reliable scientific studies and the practical
application of the Commission proposals could mean the disap-
pearance of numerous fishing-sector firms and jobs, as activities
would cease to be profitable. For this reason, the EESC suggests
that, before any firm decision is taken on minimum mesh sizes,
the Commission should step up scientific research to improve
our knowledge of the kind of materials to be used in order to
test their selectivity, thus enabling fishing activity to continue
in the future.

2.4.1.5
The minimum size of hooks used to catch voracious
red sea bream is unjustified. Existing scientific data, which are a
result of tests of hook selectivity in relation to the mature size
of the species, prompt the EESC to recommend that hook size
be set at 3.95 cm in length and less than 1.65 cm in width.
On the other hand, in the case of bottom and surface-set long-
lines, the total number of hooks should be limited in line with
the total length of the gear. Thus, the former should be limited
to 3,000 hooks and the latter, depending on whether swordfish
or other species are being caught, should be limited to 2,000
and 10,000 hooks respectively.

2.4.1.6 With regard to the minimum distances and depths
for the use of fishing gear proposed by the Commission, the
EESC considers that the wording of the article is once again
ambiguous and that it leads to confusion. Application of the
Commission's proposals would undoubtedly lead to the disap-
pearance of the shellfish industry from the greater part of the
Mediterranean seaboard. The Committee considers that limiting
fishing activity on the basis of minimum distance from the
coast could have detrimental effects as a result of the uneven
shape of the continental shelf in the Mediterranean. For this
reason, the EESC is in favour of limiting fishing activity on the
basis of minimum depth. The Committee therefore proposes
that, in the case of towed gear, fishing be prohibited within the
50 metres isobath and, in the case of encircling nets, within the
35 metres isobath.

2.4.2 With regard to Chapter V, minimum sizes of marine
organisms and artificial restocking, the EESC would make the
following comments:

2.4.2.1
The European Commission cites no scientific argu-
ments to justify the sizes proposed. In some cases, such as that
of hake, the proposal to reduce the size from 20 to 15 cm is
both inconsistent and indefensible from the biological, scientific
or economic point of view. In other cases, such as that of
swordfish,
although
ICCAT (10) has not yet made any recommendation. In other
cases, such as that of clams, the Commission has decided to
eliminate the minimum size without taking account of the
serious effects which this could have on the market.

the Commission proposes

size,

a

2.4.2.2
The EESC considers that allowing catches of fries of
sardine exceptionally is a biologically inappropriate measure, a

(10) ICCAT: International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic

Tuna:

bad precedent and out of line with the general
minimum sizes.

increase in

2.4.3.
The measures for highly migratory species proposed
in Chapter IX do not have a sufficient scientific basis for adop-
tion. As these are management methods which affect interna-
tional resources regulated by ICCAT, the EESC considers that
they should be regulated by this organisation through its
recommendations. ICCAT makes no specific recommendation
for Mediterranean swordfish, so that the Commission's propo-
sals for a minimum size for longline hooks, a four-month
moratorium on fishing with pelagic longliners and a minimum
size for swordfish should be rejected. If these recommendations
were adopted, they would spell the end for the fishing with
longlines based on these species.

2.5 Positive aspects of the proposal

for a regulation still

leaving

room for improvement

Chapter II deals with protected species and habitats,
2.5.1
prohibiting fishing above beds of seagrass (posidonia oceanica)
or other marine phanerogams. The EESC welcomes this, but
considers that coral or maerl beds should also be included.

2.5.2
Protected areas, both national and Community, are
dealt with in Chapter III. The Committee approves the estab-
lishment of an instrument to protect juvenile and spawning
stock.

2.5.3
The EESC agrees that there is a need to regulate non-
commercial or recreational fishing, as the Commission does in
Chapter VI of the proposal. However, it considers that the use
of bottom-set longlines should be prohibited and that all the
EU Member States should be required to have licensing systems
which would make it possible to assess the real scale of these
activities. On the other hand,
the proposal prohibits the
marketing of catches of marine organisms resulting from
leisure fisheries. The Committee considers that the marketing
of fish products deriving from sporting contests should be
allowed on an exceptional basis, providing that the proceeds of
such sales are used for non-commercial purposes in order to
prevent concealed trade and facilitate health checks.

fishing activities with specific

2.5.4
Chapter VII deals with national and Community
management plans. The EESC considers that the management
instrument which, combining the
plans can be a useful
technical
management of
measures, can be geared to the specific characteristics of a large
number of Mediterranean fisheries. However, the Committee
would draw attention to the danger of the management plans
being used to derogate from the general provisions of the regu-
should therefore stipulate that any
lation. The proposal
management measures contemplated must be more restrictive
than the regulation's provisions. It should thus be made clear
that the management plans may not include any measures
which are less restrictive than the provisions of the draft regu-
lation with regard to selectivity, discarding and fishing activity.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/107

to be necessary but

2.5.5
The EESC considers the control measures laid down in
that catches made using
Chapter VIII
bottom-set longlines and gillnets should be included among
those which may be landed and marketed for the first time
only at ports designated by the Member States. Similarly, the
requirement that amounts greater than 10 kg of live-weight
equivalent of certain species be recorded in the logbook could
be
administrative work. The
Committee therefore proposes that, in the case of vessels based
in ports where catches are immediately registered with the
competent authorities, market sales receipts be deemed equiva-
lent to entries in the log book, with the requirement for the
latter thus being eliminated.

source of unnecessary

a

2.6
The EESC will not assess the content of Chapter X,
measures for the waters around Malta, as these are provisions

Brussels, 26 February 2004.

implementing agreements enshrined in the 2003 Maltese
Accession Treaty.

3. Conclusion

3.1
In view of the above and of the general opposition to
the proposal from fishermen in the EU's four Mediterranean
states, the EESC proposes that the Commission withdraw the
proposal.

In view of

3.2
its concern that effective management
methods be put in place as soon as possible to ensure sustain-
able exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean, the
EESC calls on the Commission to reformulate its proposal for a
Regulation without delay, taking into account the comments
contained in this opinion.

The President

of the European Economic and Social
Committee

Roger BRIESCH