Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regulation — European Fisheries Fund (COM(2004) 497 final — 2004/0169 (CNS))
Date: 2005-05-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aid system, drafting of EU law, fisheries policy, fund (EU), sustainable development

C 267/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Regu-
lation — European Fisheries Fund

(COM(2004) 497 final — 2004/0169 (CNS))

(2005/C 267/08)

On 1 December 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

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 18 April 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Sarró
Iparraguirre.

At its 417th plenary session held on 11 and 12 May 2005 (meeting of 11 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 84 votes to 1 with 5 abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
On 1 January 2003 the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP) entered into force. It provides for the ‘sustainable
exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in
the context of sustainable development, taking account of the
environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced
manner’.

1.5
The Common Fisheries Policy and financial support for
the structural reform of this policy were covered by the Multi-
annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) until 31 December
for Fisheries
2002, and then by the Financial
Guidance (FIFG), which will continue until 31 December 2006.

Instrument

1.5.1
The regulatory framework for all this is simplified
considerably by the draft Regulation, which replaces or amends
the current Regulations
(EC) No
1263/1999 (3),
(EC) No
366/2001 (5).

(EC) No 1260/1999 (2),

2792/1999 (4)

(EC) No

and

Prior to this, on 20 December 2002, the Council of
1.1.1
the
European Union adopted Council Regulation (EC)
2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of
fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1).

2. General comments

1.2
Title II of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, in particular Article 37, provides a legal basis for Com-
munity action under the Common Fisheries Policy. From its
inception, this action has had a significant structural compo-
nent that over the past 20 years has contributed to the moder-
nisation of the fisheries sector as a whole.

In order

to achieve the specific objectives of

1.3
the
Common Fisheries Policy, the Community has to ensure the
long-term future of fishing activities, consistent with a sustain-
able exploitation of resources and a reduced environmental
impact, through essential structural adjustments that strike a
balance between resources and fishing capacity.

follows on from the Financial

2.1
For the above reasons, the EESC believes this draft Regu-
lation on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) is necessary, since
it
for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG) — which under the current (EC) Regulation,
will cease to apply on 31.12.2006 — by establishing a new
system of financial support for the period from 1.1.2007 to
31.12.2013.

Instrument

In short, the draft Regulation could be said to pursue a
2.2
double objective for the EFF. Firstly, as a financial instrument
forming an integral part of the CFP, it is to accompany resource
management measures and help adjust production structures in
order to ensure a sustainable exploitation of fishery resources
conditions needed from an
and create
economic, environmental and social point of view. Secondly, it
is an expression of solidarity with the communities and areas
engaged in fishing activities.

sustainable

the

1.4
These structural adjustments are bringing about great
changes in the fisheries sector and steps must be taken to
preserve the fishing industry's human capital, to provide it with
all the new know-how needed to contribute to the sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources and development of aquacul-
ture, and to protect the socio-economic fabric of coastal areas
by adopting accompanying measures for the regeneration of
areas affected by the restructuring of the fisheries sector.

(1) OJ L 358 of 31.12.2002

2.3
The EESC believes that the EFF must also place particu-
lar emphasis on achieving economic cohesion, and more speci-
fically, promoting growth and structural adjustment in the least
developed regions, based on the harmonious, balanced and
sustainable development of economic activities,
jobs and
human resources, as well as the protection and improvement
of the environment.

(2) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999
(3) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999
(4) OJ L 337 of 30.12.1999
(5) OJ L 55 of 24.2.2001

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/51

2.4
The Committee believes that various comments and
recommendations concerning the content of the draft Regu-
lation should be put to the Commission.

3.3.3
The EESC shares the principles of subsidiarity, shared
management and equality between men and women expressed
in the draft Regulation, and emphasises the need for these prin-
ciples to be correctly applied, enabling Member States to decide
on appropriate concrete measures.

3. Specific comments

3.1
The EFF is based on a simplified instrument with one
Regulation and one Fund to cover Community assistance. The
EESC believes this approach to be very appropriate, since it will
undoubtedly improve the Fund's effectiveness.

3.2
For the sake of such effectiveness, the draft Regulation
focuses the operational programmes on five priority axes, omit-
ting all technical detail that could impede the monitoring and
implementation of these programmes.
It cuts down on the
programming process,
eliminating additional programmes
listing the detailed measures. It simplifies the payment system,
enabling Member States to be responsible for implementing the
Community budget. With some exceptions, the eligibility rules
are to be drawn up at national level.

The mere fact, as noted earlier, that this draft Regu-
3.2.1
lation replaces or amends four Regulations currently in force
gives an idea of its simplification of this regulatory framework.

The Committee approves these regulatory provisions
3.2.2
since it believes the simplification of actions to be positive,
provided the principle of subsidiarity is correctly applied,
enabling Member States to decide on which concrete measures
they should focus their economic effort.

3.2.3
are:

The five priority axes set out in the draft Regulation

a) Measures for the adaptation of the Community fishing fleet.

b) Aquaculture, processing and marketing of fishery and aqua-

culture products.

c) Measures of collective interest.

d) Sustainable development of fishing coastal areas.

e) Technical assistance.

TITLE I defines the OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL RULES
3.3
the draft Regulation. The Committee,
ON ASSISTANCE of
whilst generally agreeing with the Commission's reasoning in
Title I, wishes to make the following comments:

The EESC considers that Article 3 should make a clear
3.3.1
distinction between a ‘vessel owning fisherman’ and an
‘employed fisherman’.

The Committee suggests an additional objective for
3.3.2
assistance under the Fund to those already set out namely, ‘to
safeguard a good quality working environment and to improve
living conditions, safety and hygiene in the workplace’.

As

regards

financial

resources,

3.3.4
the Commission
proposes the commitment of EUR 4,963 million at 2004
prices, for the period of 2007 to 2013. 0.8 % of this budget is
to be devoted to technical assistance, directly managed by the
Commission, for a series of actions set out in the draft Regu-
lation.

3.3.4.1
75 % of the commitment appropriations available to
the CFP will be committed to the regions covered by the
Convergence Objective and 25 % to other regions. As indicated
in Annex I of the draft Regulation, of this 75 %, EUR 1,702
million shall be shared between the regions of
those new
Member States covered by the Convergence Objective and
EUR 2,015 million shall be shared between the other regions
thus covered. The remaining EUR 1,246 million are to be allo-
cated to the rest of the EU's regions.

3.3.4.2
The EESC questions whether this budget will be
sufficient to fulfil all the commitments made in the draft Regu-
lation.

3.3.5
The Committee believes the apportionment criteria
provided in Article 13 of the draft Regulation, regarding the
distribution of funds between Member States, to be appropriate,
since it proposes allocating the commitment appropriations
available according to the size of the Member State's fishing
sector, the scale of adjustment necessary to the fishing effort,
the level of employment in the sector and the continuity of
measures in hand. However,
the EESC emphasises that the
‘continuity of measures in hand’ should take into account the
situation of Member States that comply with Community legis-
lation, particularly that relating to the multi-annual guidance
programmes.

TITLE II

‘STRATEGIC GUIDELINES’ AND TITLE III
3.4
‘PROGRAMMING’ provide for the initial adoption of Com-
munity strategic guidelines,
then the drawing-up by each
Member State of both a national strategic plan for its fisheries
sector, in line with the Community strategies, and, in accord-
ance with this national
strategic plan, of an operational
programme for the period from 1 January 2007 until 31
December 2013. These operational programmes, which need
to be in line with Community strategy, the specific objectives
of the Common Fisheries Policy and other common policies,
are to be drawn up in accordance with the guidelines set out in
the draft Regulation and to be submitted to the Commission
for approval.

C 267/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

3.4.1
Once approved by the Commission, the operational
programmes are to be implemented and can be re-examined in
the case of
implementation difficulties, significant strategic
changes or for reasons of sound management.

— recovery plans;

— emergency measures;

At all events, the Regulation provides that by 30 April
3.4.2
2011 each Member State is to submit a report to the Commis-
sion on the implementation of the national strategic plan, and
that by 31 October 2011 the Commission is to submit a report
to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
implementation of the national strategic plans and the Com-
munity strategic guidelines.

The EESC believes the order of

3.4.3
the draft strategic
guidelines — Community strategic guidelines, then national
guidelines and lastly corresponding operational guidelines — to
be logical. Nevertheless, the Committee expresses its concern
over whether three months will be sufficient time in which to
draw up the national strategic plan, considering the scope of
this plan,
the difficulties caused by the participation of a
‘partner’ and the number of regions in some coastal countries.

TITLE IV outlines the co-financing of the EFF according

3.5
to the five priority axes given in point 3.2.

Under priority axis 1, ‘Measures for the adaptation of
3.5.1
the European Commission
the Community fishing fleet’,
proposes three main lines of action, taking into account Regu-
lation (EC) No 2371/2002, based on a contribution to the
financing of:

a) Public aid for ship owners and crews affected by national
plans to adjust the fishing effort, in the cases provided for.

b) Investments on board fishing vessels of 5 years of age or
more for modernisation over the main deck to improve
safety on board, working conditions and product quality,
provided that such modernisation does not increase the
ability of the vessel to catch fish.

c) Socio-economic compensation in support of fleet manage-
i.e. the promotion of multiple jobs for fishermen,

ment,
professional training for other jobs and early retirement.

This line of action also provides for a contribution to the
financing of training measures and incentives for young
fishermen who wish to become owners of a fishing vessel
for the first time.

The first line of action (point 3.5.1) for which the
3.5.1.1
Commission proposes financial assistance, is public aid for ship
owners and crews affected by national plans to adjust the
fishing effort, where these form part of the following:

— non-renewal of fisheries agreements with third countries;

— the introduction of management plans;

— national plans for exit from the fleet with a maximum dura-

tion of two years.

3.5.1.1.1
The draft Regulation stipulates in Article 24 that
the duration of the national fishing effort adjustment plans
shall must exceed two years.

3.5.1.1.1.1
recovery and management plans are to be multi-annual.

Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 stipulates that

The EESC believes that to stipulate that fishing
3.5.1.1.1.2
effort adjustment plans do not exceed two years in duration
could cause serious problems in Member States, demanding a
substantial effort in a short space of time, given the multi-
annual nature of the recovery plans. The Committee believes
that the aid for national fishing effort adjustment plans referred
to in Article 23(a) of the draft Regulation should last at least
four years.

the national

Under priority axis 1, the Commission proposes
3.5.1.1.2
that
include
fishing effort adjustment plans
measures for the permanent and temporary cessation of fishing
activities.

3.5.1.1.2.1
The draft Regulation states that the permanent
cessation of the fishing activities of a vessel may be achieved
only by the scrapping of the vessel or its re-assignment for
non-profit making purposes. The EESC believes that such a re-
assignment should be to alternative activities, regardless of
possible profit, since the Commission itself promotes certain
profit-making re-assignments, to tourist fishing for example.
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the concept of re-
assignment could also cover the final export of fishing vessels
to third countries and joint enterprises, provided that scientific
reports prove the existence of surplus fish stocks that permit
the development of sustainable fishing in the waters of the
third countries.

The Committee maintains the view stated in its
3.5.1.1.2.2
Opinion on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (6): ‘the
EESC considers that
the joint enterprises are one possible
instrument for reorientating the fisheries fleet and for coopera-
tion with third countries under the Cooperation and Develop-
ment Policy’.

(6) OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/53

3.5.1.1.2.3
The Committee is concerned by the criteria
proposed by the European Commission in Article 25 for the
setting of the level of public aid to be received by ship owners
the
should they decide to scrap their vessels, given that
Commission is introducing variable premium values, based on
the value of the ship on the national market,
its insurance
value, the turnover of the vessel and its age and tonnage. In the
opinion of the Committee, these criteria could cause problems
in the fishing sector and even discrimination depending on the
value that each country attributes to vessels. It therefore calls
on the Commission to seek alternative criteria that are fairer
for all Member States.

3.5.1.1.3
In addition to the Fund's financial contribution to
the temporary cessation of
fishing activities due to fishing
effort adjustment plans,
the Commission's draft Regulation
the EFF may contribute to the financing of
provides that
temporary cessation allowances to fishermen and the owners of
vessels for a maximum period of six months in the event of a
natural disaster or other exceptional occurrence which is not
the result of resource conservation measures.

3.5.1.1.3.1
dealing with natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.

The EESC believes this provision to be vital for

3.5.1.2
For fishing vessels of more than five years of age,
investments on board are confined to modernisation over the
main deck to improve safety on board.

3.5.1.2.1
replacement of the fishing vessel's main engine.

The draft Regulation excludes co-financing for the

3.5.1.2.2
The EESC believes that, with the exception of
rescue and communication systems, which are normally situ-
ated over the main deck, the vessels' safety relies largely on
equipment found below the main deck.

Considering that

3.5.1.2.3
the need to replace the main
engine clearly affects the safety of the vessel, that this replace-
ment does not necessarily have to increase its kWs of power
and therefore that its fishing capacity does not necessarily have
to be increased either, the Committee proposes that, although
Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 limits modernisation to equipment
found on the main deck, the Commission should consider the
possibility of including the replacement of the main engine in
the policy of investment on board fishing vessels, purely as a
matter of safety.

The Committee,

3.5.1.2.4
the
Commission, is also thinking of the long-term maintenance of
the fishing fleet in the wake of the implementation of the
reform of the CFP.

in making this request of

3.5.1.2.5
In addition to the investments in on board safety
mentioned, the draft Regulation also provides for the financing
of equipment that enables discards to be kept on board, that
forms part of certain pilot projects or that reduces the impact
of fishing on habitats and the sea bottom. The EESC agrees
with these proposals.

3.5.1.3
The draft Regulation provides, and the Committee
agrees, that this co-financing of equipment shall be increased
by 20 % where applied to vessels that practice ‘small-scale
coastal fishing’.

Finally,

the EESC welcomes

3.5.1.4
the socio-economic
measures provided for in the draft Regulation. These are of
fundamental importance to fishermen compelled to leave the
fishing sector as a result of the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy. However, the Committee believes these socio-economic
measures should include assistance for further training and
retraining of those fishermen remaining in sea fishing.

3.5.1.4.1
The Committee believes that, as well as fishermen,
their fisheries associations should also be eligible for this socio-
economic compensation.

The Committee regrets that young fishermen who
3.5.1.4.2
wish to become owners of a fishing vessel for the first time are
only eligible for financial contributions to their nautical fish-
eries training and not to the construction of their fishing vessel,
which could be subject to various restrictions, as could the size
thereof. The EESC calls on the Commission to assess this possi-
bility.

The EESC is aware that these financial contribution
3.5.1.5
lines strictly adhere to Regulation (EC) 2371/2002. However,
the Committee is also aware of
its obligation vis-à-vis the
Member States and consequently European citizens to ensure
the Commission's proposals.
the socio-economic quality of
Therefore, it must point out that with the measures proposed
by the Commission, EU fishermen will move more quickly into
other types of employment, the Community fishing fleet will
be weakened and consequently, the European Union will be
increasingly dependent on fish imports from third countries.

3.5.1.6
Therefore, and taking into account that fishing —
one of the most dangerous occupations in Europe and the
world — has the highest number of accidents at work, the
Committee reiterates the content of its previous Opinions (7) on
the Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy and
on the Commission Communication on the reform of the Common
Fisheries Policy, in which it stated that ‘fleet reduction measures
should not lose sight of the need to continue to renew and
modernise the Community's fleet. There should be a firm
commitment to achieving high-quality conditions for proces-
sing the raw material, improving the quality of life on board,
and enhancing safety for crews’. The EESC calls on the
Commission to reconsider the request made in the conclusions
of its Opinion on the reform of the CFP, in which it stressed
that ‘Public aid should continue to be granted for the renewal
the fishing fleet’, as long as fishery
and modernisation of
resources allow. The EESC calls on the Commission to recon-
sider the request made in the conclusions of its Opinion on the
reform of the CFP, in which it stressed that ‘Public aid should
continue to be granted for the renewal and modernisation of
the fishing fleet’, as long as fishery resources allow.

(7) CESE 1369/2002 (OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003) and CESE 1315/2001 (OJ

C 36 of 8.2.2002)

C 267/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

3.5.2
Priority axis 2 sets out the possibility of Fund support
for investments in ‘Aquaculture, processing and marketing of
fishery and aquaculture products’. The draft Regulation, after
clearly explaining which aquaculture, processing and marketing
investments are eligible, and within these investments which
measures are eligible, then restricts or reserves such aid to the
investments of micro and small enterprises.

3.5.2.1
The only reason given by the Commission for this
restriction is that micro and small enterprises represent 90 % of
the aquaculture producing industry. The EESC believes that the
principle of subsidiarity should be clearly applied to this
priority. The only restriction on the financing of these projects
should be that they are economically and commercially viable.
This would improve the competitiveness of enterprises and
should be decided upon by Member States when they draw up
their national strategic plan and fix their specific objectives.
that EFF co-financing should be
The Committee believes
directed at cost-effective enterprises, particularly micro and
small enterprises that have a rigorous business plan. Only these
enterprises will allow for the preservation of the economic and
social fabric needed to improve living conditions and conserve
the environment. Therefore, although co-financing for micro
and small enterprises is given priority, the Committee requests
that other types of cost-effective enterprise also be considered
eligible for co-financing.

Considering that

3.5.2.2
the activity of auxiliary fishing
vessels supporting aquaculture does not increase the fishing
effort's impact on fishery resources, the Committee believes
that the draft Regulation should provide for Fund co-financing
for the building of new boats such as these.

3.5.2.3 Within the eligible measures, the EESC believes that
the draft Regulation should provide for the possibility of
investments aimed at
the financing of
granting aid for
improving the biological and economic efficiency of
the
current production systems,
in order to facilitate the use of
new technologies that are more environmentally friendly and
cost-effective.

it

However,

the EESC believes that

3.5.2.5
is practically
impossible to implement Article 31(4) of the draft Regulation.
A Member State, when drawing up its operational programme
for 2006, cannot predict losses of revenue incurred, additional
costs or the need to provide financial support for carrying out
the projects for each of the next seven years. Therefore, the
EESC calls for the deletion of Article 31(4).

The EESC believes the Fund's contributions to public
3.5.2.6
and animal health measures to be appropriate, in so much as
they provide for compensations to shellfish farmers for the
temporary suspension of farmed mollusc harvesting due to
contamination, and for the financing of
the eradication of
pathological risks in aquaculture.

3.5.2.7
Similarly, the Committee believes the draft Regula-
tion's eligible measures for investments in processing and
marketing to be sufficient, provided that, as has already been
stated, they are not restricted to micro and small enterprises.

3.5.2.8
The EESC believes that this priority axis should also
clearly provide for financial support for fishing activities in
inland or continental waters, which in some Member States of
the European Union represent key fishing grounds.

3.5.3
Priority axis 3 of the draft Regulation provides for
‘measures of collective interest’. It provides that the Fund may
assist collective actions of limited duration which are imple-
mented with the active support of operators themselves or by
organisations acting on behalf of producers or other organisa-
tions recognised by the Managing Authority and which help to
meet the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. However,
and even though the principles for assistance provide that
actions may be implemented by ‘operators themselves’, they
also state that the Fund may assist collective actions of limited
duration, ‘which would not normally be supported by private
enterprise’. Furthermore, Annex II of the draft Regulation does
not provide for the financial participation of private benefici-
aries in the non-productive investments included in ‘Group 1’,
which covers all those investments found in priority axis 3.
Therefore, the Committee requests that the Fund may assist
collective actions of limited duration called for by private busi-
nesses.

The

3.5.2.4
an innovation
draft Regulation presents
regarding aquaculture that the EESC believes to be very impor-
tant. This provides for the granting of economic compensation,
subject to a series of conditions, for the use of aquaculture
production methods helping to protect and improve the envir-
onment and conserve nature,
in order to meet Community
objectives relating to fishing and the environment.

The Committee welcomes the Fund support

for
3.5.3.1
‘collective actions’ proposed in Article 36 of the EFF. The four
wide-ranging lines of action allow for the selection of impor-
tant objectives for the fisheries sector and for aquaculture.

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/55

3.5.3.2 With regard to the ‘Measures intended to protect
and develop aquatic fauna’ in Article 37, the EESC is concerned
that these are of a purely engineering nature, such as the instal-
lation of static or mobile installations intended to protect and
develop aquatic fauna or to rehabilitate inland waterways
including spawning grounds and migration routes for migra-
tory species. No mention is made of the need for a scientific
follow-up and direct restocking is excluded. The EESC calls for
Fund assistance for this type of action to specifically require a
scientific follow-up and to take account of the need for support
for the restocking of certain migratory species. Furthermore, it
calls for interested private bodies who could meet the specified
objectives to be included in the list of organisations that may
implement this type of action.

Cofinancing for investments in ‘Fishing ports’

3.5.3.3
is
clearly described. The EESC believes that another line of action,
providing for the establishment and upkeep of hostels for EU
fishermen returning from sea and not resident in their docking
place, should be added to the five lines of action set out.

3.5.3.4
The approach to ‘Promotion and development of
new markets’ can count on the EESC's backing since EFF
support is mainly concentrated on collective actions intended
to,
improve
product quality, promote products obtained using methods
with low impact on the environment and to improve the image
of the fisheries sector through campaigns.

inter alia, use surplus or underexploited species,

3.5.3.5 With regard to the ‘Pilot projects’ of Article 40, the
EESC believes that a paragraph providing for the possibility of
funding exploratory fishing pilot projects should be included,
provided their aim is the conservation of fishery resources and
they involve more selective techniques, as set out in the current
FIFG.

3.5.3.6
In this axis, the EESC believes that the European
Commission should also incorporate measures needed to
improve scientific advice as proposed in its Communication on
Improving scientific and technical advice for Community fisheries
management (8). With this in mind, the Committee believes that
research voyages at sea, socio-economic studies on the impact
of the drastic measures taken to recover stocks, a scientific
assessment of the sector, and the work of the Regional Advi-
sory Councils should all be funded. Scientists should be funded
in the same way as members of the Councils.

3.5.4
The scope of assistance of priority axis 4 ‘Sustainable
development of coastal fishing areas’, states that the Fund shall
provide assistance, in addition to the other Community instru-
ments, for the sustainable development and improvement of
the quality of life of eligible coastal fishing areas. It goes on to
clarify that this assistance is part of an overall strategy, which
seeks to support the implementation of the objectives of the
Common Fisheries Policy,
in particular taking account of its
socio-economic consequences.

The majority of the measures under this priority axis
3.5.4.1
are designed to regenerate those coastal areas dependent on
fishing, given that their development cannot continue to be
connected to fishing activities. The EESC believes that
the
these areas,
the sustainable development of
measures
intended to promote alternative activities to fishing, should be
preceded by a well-grounded scientific analysis carried out in
collaboration with both scientists and the fishing sector in the
affected area.

for

3.5.4.2
The draft Regulation establishes that each Member
State ‘shall include in its operational programme a list of the
areas eligible for support from the Fund under sustainable
development of coastal areas.’

3.5.4.3
In principle, this approach fits in with the concept
of subsidiarity, which is continually invoked by the Commis-
sion as a vital element in the correct implementation of the
draft Regulation. However, the Commission itself weakens this
when it specifies that Member States must define their eligible
areas according to various parameters, some of which are not
at all realistic, particularly that stipulating that they must have
less than 100 000 inhabitants. Therefore, the EESC calls for
this requirement to be deleted from the parameters defining the
eligible areas.

3.5.4.4
On this issue, the Committee believes that once the
eligible measures are set by the Commission, the application of
the principle of subsidiarity is vital. The EESC calls on the
Commission to grant the Member States the right in the draft
Regulation to establish a list of eligible coastal areas according
to their own criteria.

3.5.4.5
Finally, this priority axis provides that actions to
assist the sustainable development of coastal fishing areas is to
be implemented on a given territory by a group of local public
or private partners, called the ‘coastal action group’ (CAG).

3.5.3.7
establishment
should be continued, as in the current FIFG.

Furthermore, the Committee believes that aid for the
and functioning of producer organisations

(8) DO C 47 of 27.2.2003

The CAGs are to manage the aid, adhering to
3.5.4.6
various rules of operation that ensure administrative and finan-
cial capacity and hence guarantee with total transparency the
successful completion of the planned operations.

C 267/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2005

3.5.4.7
be subject to prior recognition by the social partners.

The EESC advises that the composition of the CAGs

cipation of a ‘partner’ and the number of regions in some
coastal countries.

3.5.5
Provisions for EFF assistance are concluded in Priority
axis 5 ‘Technical assistance’. This priority axis, at the initiative
of and/or on behalf of
is to finance the
measures to be carried out by the Commission for the prepara-
tion, monitoring, administrative and technical support, evalua-
tion, audit and inspection of the EFF, and such measures may
be proposed by the Member States
in their operational
programmes for the same purpose.

the Commission,

3.5.5.1
The draft Regulation limits the budget for technical
assistance to 0.8 % of its annual allocation and the support for
Member States to 5 % of
the amount of each operational
programme.

3.5.5.2
actions and the limits of funding.

The Committee approves

the proposed eligible

4. General comments

The draft Regulation presents a series of general provi-
4.1
sions on the ‘Effectiveness of and publicity for assistance’, the
‘Financial contribution by the Fund’, ‘Management, monitoring
and controls’, ‘Financial management’ and the ‘European Fish-
eries Fund Committee’.

4.1.1
The Committee agrees with all these provisions, since
they ensure proper operation, management, monitoring and
transparency of the Fund.

5. Conclusions

that will

The draft Regulation on the EFF constitutes a financial
5.1
instrument
resource management
accompany
measures and adjust the sector's production structures in line
with the Common Fisheries Policy. Therefore,
the proposal
presented by the Commission basically has the support of the
European Economic and Social Committee.

5.2
The Committee approves the Regulation's period of
implementation, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013,
and its review by the Council before the end of this period.

5.3
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the objectives
and general rules on assistance laid down are highly appro-
priate, although it urges the Commission to extend the prin-
ciple of subsidiarity as much as possible, giving Member States
the authority to decide on the concrete measures on which
their economic effort
should focus. The Committee also
suggests an additional objective for assistance under the Fund
to those already set out, namely ‘to safeguard a good quality
working environment and to improve living conditions, safety
and hygiene in the workplace’.

5.4
The Committee believes the period of three months
given to draw up the national strategic plan is too tight, consid-
ering the scope of this plan, the difficulties caused by the parti-

the Community fishing fleet’,

5.5 With regard to priority axis 1 ‘Measures for the adapta-
tion of
the measures being
adopted by the Fund are as a result of the text approved by the
Council in the reform of the CFP. Nevertheless, the Committee
believes that the European Union should continue to maintain
an operational and competitive fishing fleet both inside and
outside its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and that this is the
Commission's responsibility. Therefore, the EESC calls on the
to
Commission to consider
priority axis 1:

the following improvements

— Funding for the national fishing effort adjustment plans

should last for at least four years.

— Aid for the permanent cessation of fishing activities should
cover not only the scrapping of vessels but also their re-
assignment to other purposes than fishing and their export
to third countries and joint enterprises.

— The use of fairer criteria to calculate the level of public aid

applicable to scrapping.

— For safety reasons,

to include replacement of the main
engine as one of the investments on board fishing vessels
eligible for funding.

— These socio-economic measures should include assistance
those fishermen
training and retraining of

further

for
remaining in sea fishing.

— Maintenance of an operational

fishing fleet through the
renovation and modernisation of fishing vessels as long as
fishery resources allow.

fishery and aquaculture products’,

As regards priority axis 2 ‘Aquaculture, processing and
5.6
marketing of
the EESC
believes that the subsidiarity criterion should be incorporated
into its implementation, giving Member States the authority to
the Fund's
decide on the most appropriate application of
economic
investments
giving
presented by micro and small enterprises. The only restriction
on this should be that the projects presented must be econom-
ically and commercially viable, to improve the competitiveness
of businesses.

contribution,

priority

to

5.7 With regard to priority axis 3 ‘Measures of collective
interest’, the Committee calls for the Fund to finance collective
actions of limited duration proposed by private businesses, and
investments necessary to improve scientific and technical
advice on Community fisheries management.

5.8
Priority axis 4 ‘Sustainable development of coastal
fishing areas’, limits eligible areas to those of less than 100 000
this requirement
inhabitants. The Committee believes that
should be deleted and the principle of subsidiarity applied,
recognising each Member State's right to establish the list of
eligible coastal areas according to their own criteria.

27.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/57

5.9
The Committee welcomes priority axis 5 ‘Technical
assistance’, believing the proposed eligible actions and funding
limits to be appropriate.

5.10
The EESC believes that the EFF should also clearly
provide for financial support for fishing activities in inland or
continental waters, which in some Member States of the Euro-
pean Union represent key fishing grounds. The Committee
is replaced by the words
recommends that the word ‘lakes’
‘inland waters’
in Chapter II, Article 4 point (e) and in any
other article of the Proposal for a Council Regulation.

Brussels, 11 May 2005.

5.11
The EESC gives its full support to the Fund's manage-
ment, control and monitoring systems, believing them to be
highly appropriate and necessary to the effectiveness of the
EFF.

5.12
For all the above reasons, the European Economic and
Social Committee endorses the draft Regulation on the EFF
presented by the Commission, but calls on the Commission to
take into account the comments set out in this opinion.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Decision
on the system of the European Communities' own resources

(COM(2004) 501 final — 2004/0170 (CNS))

(2005/C 267/09)

On 22 October 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 April 2005. The rapporteur
was Mr Burani.

At its 417th plenary session, held on 12 May 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 118 votes to 2 with 15 abstentions.

1. Introduction

Article 9 of the Council Decision on the system of the
1.1
European Communities' own resources (1) provides that
the
Commission should proceed to a general review of the
System of the European Communities' own resources for
2007-2013 by 1 January 2006. If necessary, the review should
be accompanied by appropriate proposals. The European
Parliament has explicitly requested a review of the criteria
for financial contributions. Consequently the Commission, in
agreement with the Council, has
submitted the present
proposal. The Commission's task in this regard was difficult
and technically complex. Moreover, it was politically sensitive
in that
it concerned relations amongst Member States and
between Member States and their citizens.

The technical part of

1.2
the document makes difficult
reading, even for those who are acquainted with the principles
the Commission should be
of public finance. Nevertheless,
given credit for having done its utmost to ensure that, at least,

the document facilitates discussion amongst specialists, and can
be understood by the decision-makers. The proposal is in fact
accompanied by a report (2) outlining the current situation and
evaluating the pros and cons of possible alternatives. A tech-
nical appendix (3) outlines the econometric aspects, providing
relevant accounting, mathematical, and economic details.

1.3
Consequently, the Committee intends to focus on the
points that directly concern the fairness of financial contribu-
tions and the mechanisms for profit and burden sharing
amongst Member States. This choice is made in the knowledge
of the fact that obscure technicalities may sometimes cloud the
economic and political
implications.
Furthermore the concept of a ‘fair’ own resources mechanism is
terms since it combines
difficult

to define in unequivocal

significance of

their

(1) OJ L 253 of 7.10.2000 p. 42

(2) COM(2004) 505 final
(3) COM(2004) 505 final vol. II