Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy COM(2005) 647 final
Date: 2006-07-05
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common fisheries policy, consolidation of EU law, fishing regulations, simplification of legislation

C 309/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying
and improving the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2005) 647 final

(2006/C 309/13)

On 23 January 2006 the European Commission 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 Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 May 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Sarró
Iparraguirre.

At its 428th plenary session, held on 5 and 6 July 2006 (meeting of 5 July), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 164 votes to none with one abstention.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

As

it has

1.1
informed the Commission in previous
opinions, the EESC supports the process of simplifying Com-
munity legislation and therefore welcomes the publication of
the 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the
Common Fisheries Policy. The aim of the present opinion is to
contribute to the outstanding work the Commission plans to
carry out, which is of vital
importance to improving the
Community's fisheries legislation.

1.2
the
For the simplification process to be successful,
Committee considers that close cooperation with the fisheries
sector must be forged by supporting and intensifying links with
the Commission's consultative bodies, i.e. the Regional Advi-
sory Councils (RACs), the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture (ACFA), and the Fisheries Sectoral Social Dialogue
Committee.

The EESC believes that the first thing the Commission
1.3
should do is to consolidate the existing rules. Once this is
done, the Commission must strive to meet the aims set out in
its communication, which it fully endorses:

a) an improvement in the clarity of existing texts, making

them simpler and more accessible;

b) a reduction of costs and constraints for public administra-

tions; and

c) alleviation of administrative costs and constraints for fish-

ermen.

1.4
The EESC also endorses the choice of the two areas and
the legislative instruments on which the action plan focuses:
conservation and management of fish stocks, and monitoring
of fishing activities. The Commission will subsequently have to
continue the process of simplifying and improving the rest of
the CFP.

1.5
The Committee considers the measures put forward in
Sheet 1 on TACs/Quotas-fishing effort to be appropriate: sepa-
rate treatment of the different aspects of conservation policy,
regulation on the basis of uniform groups and implementation
through multiannual management plans. However, it considers
that the time between the date of delivery of the scientific
opinions and the December Council meeting which sets the

TACs, quotas
and other highly important management
measures is very short and not enough to hold all the necessary
consultations and reach agreement. The Committee therefore
calls for more time between the publication of the scientific
opinions and the final decision.

1.6 With regard to Sheet 2 which sets out to simplify tech-
nical measures, the EESC is concerned at the possibility of the
European Commission assuming powers at present held by the
Council.

1.7
Similarly, with regard to the possibility that Sheet 2 also
provides of authorising Member States to adopt local technical
measures, the EESC considers that the Council should also
approve requests submitted by the Member States, in order to
prevent inequalities and discrimination between fishermen of
different countries.

1.8
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the
measures set out in Sheets 3, 4 and 5 to simplify the process of
data input and management and to make monitoring measures
more effective. It considers coordination between the Commis-
sion and the European Fisheries Control Agency to be of the
greatest importance for drafting such measures. The EESC also
believes that a transitional period should be provided for
bringing information technologies into use. This is necessary in
order to define the process in agreement with the technical
specialists, fishermen and the Member States, provide full guar-
antees of commercial confidentiality, secure the trust and
support of stakeholders, test the process under real conditions,
contribute to the increased financial cost of the new equipment
to be introduced and, consequently, to ensure the success of
the simplification reform.

1.9
The EESC warmly welcomes the Commission's proposal
on Sheet 6 to remove all reporting obligations of little or no
value, in order to reduce the workload of fishermen and the
Member States.

1.10
The Committee considers the simplification measures
contained in Sheet 7 to be necessary, and urges the Commis-
sion to give consideration to drawing up a standard agreement
as a basis for negotiating fishing agreements with all third
countries, as well as to granting and issuing fishing licences
electronically.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/61

1.11
The EESC considers that combating illegal, unregulated
and unreported (IUU) fishing, which is one of the CFP's objec-
tives, also merits mention in the action plan, in the form of an
objective aimed at defining the simplest and most effective
means possible of combating such IUU fishing. The EESC
believes that this process should focus on access to consumer
markets, strengthening the powers of the relevant port States,
and banning high seas transshipment.

1.12
Lastly, the EESC considers that the scale of the work
entailed by the 2006-2008 action plan is such that it may not
be possible to complete it within the three year timeframe. It
therefore recommends that the Commission review the plan
before the end of 2007.

2.8
The Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament, 2006-2008 Action Plan
for simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy, the
subject of the present opinion, brings the multiannual 2006-
2008 rolling programme to bear on the fisheries sector,
in
order to simplify and improve the CFP.

As an institutional

2.9
representative of organised civil
society, the EESC — which has expressed its support for simpli-
fying the European law-making process to the Commission in
previous opinions — welcomes the publication of the Action
Plan. The present opinion is intended to contribute to the
Commission's outstanding work and to encourage it
to
continue its multiannual approach.

2. Reasons

3. Background

2.1
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the European
Union has embarked upon an ambitious mission to improve its
entire legislative environment, in order to make it more effec-
tive and transparent.

2.2 With the development of the European Union during
the second half of the past century, this legislative environment
has turned into a substantial body of Community law consti-
tuting the Community acquis.

2.3
The Community acquis has grown in the wake of the
many laws concerning each of the Community's various poli-
cies, together making up the regulatory environment of Com-
munity policy.

2.4
In accordance with the instructions of the European
Council, the Commission is currently engaged in coordinated
action with the other Community institutions to simplify and
improve the regulatory framework of Community legislation.

3.1
The Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000
asked the Commission to prepare an action plan ‘for further
coordinated action to simplify the regulatory environment’.
This call was subsequently confirmed by the European Councils
at Stockholm (23 and 24 March 2001), Laeken (8 and
9 December 2001) and Barcelona (15 and 16 March 2002).

3.2
The Commission accordingly presented a White Paper
on European Governance, which was adopted in July 2001 (1),
and contained a section on improving the quality of regulation.
A wide-ranging consultation process on the white paper
finished on 31 March 2002.

The

European Economic

3.3
and Social Committee's
opinion on the white paper stated that ‘the Committee supports
the proposals of the White Paper to simplify and speed up the
European legislative process, as Community rules are increas-
ingly complex and sometimes tend to add to existing national
regulations rather than actually simplifying and harmonising
them’ (2).

2.5
This work to simplify and improve EU legislation is an
integral part of the revised Lisbon strategy for growth and
employment in Europe and therefore focuses on those aspects
of the Community acquis which affect the competitiveness of
businesses in the EU.

Under this approach,

3.4
in June 2002 the Commission
proposed an action plan to simplify and improve the regulatory
environment. The proposal was in turn submitted to the other
Community institutions for discussion (3).

Given that European small and medium-sized enter-
2.6
prises (SMEs) represent 99 % of all EU businesses, and provide
two thirds of employment, action to simplify and improve
European Union law-making is of crucial importance to them,
as it lightens the legal and administrative burden they presently
bear.

3.5
The action plan clearly calls for the three main stages of
the legislative cycle — presentation of a legislative proposal by
the Commission, discussion of the proposal in the European
Parliament and Council, and implementation of the regulatory
instrument by the Member States — to be completed with a
view to reaching an interinstitutional agreement to improve the
quality of Community legislation.

2.7
As part of this strategy of simplification and improve-
ment of Community legislation, the Commission has planned
to set up a rolling simplification programme covering the agri-
cultural, environmental, health and safety at work, fisheries,
taxation, customs, statistics and labour law sectors.

(1) COM(2001) 428 final of 30.7.2001.
(2) OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, p. 61 (COM(2001) 428 final European

Governance — a White Paper).

(3) COM(2002) 278 final of 5.6.2002 — Action Plan ‘Simplifying and

improving the regulatory environment’.

C 309/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

3.6
The simplification of EU legislation, which began some
years ago, has picked up speed since February 2003, with the
Communication from the Commission on Updating and simpli-
fying the Community acquis (4). Using this communication as a
starting-point,
the Commission launched a wide-ranging
programme to identify those legislative acts which might be
simplified, consolidated and codified, and which is continuing
today.

4.1.2
Past and present evaluation must take into account the
fact that legislation in this sector covers a varied group of fish-
eries and addresses several chapters: structures, conservation
and the environment, external resources, markets and enforce-
ment. This diversity necessarily results in numerous regulations
or,
lengthy regulations which are difficult to
interpret.

in some cases,

3.7
The Communication from the Commission Better Regu-
lation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union (5), published in
March 2005, gave new impetus to the Interinstitutional Agree-
ment on better law-making signed on 16 December 2003 by
the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Its
main purpose is to improve the quality of Community legisla-
tion and its transposition into national law (6).

on

Lastly,

Implementing

in October 2005 the Commission published a
3.8
Communication
Lisbon
Programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory envir-
onment (7), which put in motion the action plans for the various
Community policies by means of
rolling simplification
programmes.

the Community

In parallel with the intensive work to direct the simplifi-
3.9
cation and improvement of the full range of Community legis-
lation and its regulatory framework, the Commission forwarded
a Communication on Perspectives for simplifying and improving the
regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries Policy (8) to the
Council and the European Parliament.

3.10
This latter communication, together with the one now
being presented on the 2006-2008 Action Plan, provide a basis
for the present opinion.

3.11
The EESC, aware of the complexity involved in simpli-
fying and improving all Community legislation, urges the
Commission to continue along the same path and to strive to
comply promptly with the established deadlines in order to
achieve the objectives set.

4.1.3
Furthermore, the Council's decision-making procedure
at the end of each year for the annual setting of TACs and
quotas, makes it difficult to hold all the necessary consultations
and reach decisions in time for the measures to enter into
force,
in turn resulting in numerous amendments to the
published regulations.

4.1.4
This inevitable accumulation of amendments to the
various regulations governing the CFP means that neither
laymen nor fishermen can easily understand texts drawn up by
experts who draft legal provisions frequently based on scientific
documents which are not readily comprehensible.

4.1.5
Council and European Parliament negotiations some-
times produce more complex final documents than the original
proposals.

Lastly,

in legal and political terms, some regulatory
4.1.6
measures have been placed at a higher level than strictly neces-
sary, making them harder to amend and simplify.

The EESC understands that although the root causes
4.1.7
of many of these situations still persist, the Commission is
aware of them and is taking the necessary measures to correct
them, as it began doing as long ago as 1992 by amending the
1983 CFP, and with the 2006-2008 Action Plan which it is
now presenting
the CFP on
31 December 2002.

following the

reform of

4. General comments

4.1 Community fisheries legislation 1983-2002

The Community's legislation on fisheries was grouped
4.1.1
under the 1983 Common Fisheries Policy. The rules governing
the policy fell short of the mark: fisheries management rules
were based on translating scientific findings into legislative
provisions, but with an almost total absence of communication
with the Community fisheries sector; and the legislation was
excessively complex as a result of the laborious Commission-
Council-Parliament decision-making procedure.

(4) COM(2003) 71 of 11.2. 2003.
(5) COM(2005) 97 of 16.3.2005.
(6) OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003 and corrigendum OJ C 4 of 8.1.2004.
(7) COM(2005) 535 of 25.10.2005.
(8) COM(2004) 820 of 15.12.2004.

4.2 Current Community fisheries legislation

4.2.1
Simplification is a natural part of the reform of the
Common Fisheries Policy of 31 December 2002 (9). A number
of steps — repeals, declarations of obsolescence, and screening
of the legislative environment — are already under way.

4.2.2
The Proposal for a Regulation to set up a new Euro-
pean Fisheries Fund (10), on which the Committee has issued a
favourable opinion, is a good example of programming for the
simplification initiative, replacing or modifying, with a single
regulation, the provisions of the four regulations making up
the Multi-Annual Guidance Programmes
(MAGP) and the
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) into a single
regulation.

(9) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002.
(10) COM(2004) 497 final.

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/63

4.2.3
Throughout 2004 and 2005, the Commission put in
place a series of pieces of legislation which will help it to tackle
the reform and simplification of the CFP. These include:

4.3 2006-2008 Action Plan for simplifying and improving the

Common Fisheries Policy

— the European Fisheries Fund;

— the European Fisheries Control Agency;

— establishment of the Regional Advisory Councils;

— Community financial measures to implement the CFP and

the Law of the Sea.

Wide-ranging debates and discussions were also held with
numerous contacts, culminating in the presentation of
the
above-mentioned Communication on Perspectives for simplifying
and improving the regulatory environment of the Common Fisheries
Policy.

4.2.4
The communication suggests that simply reducing the
number of regulations is not enough to improve the regulatory
environment of the CFP; there must be, at the same time:

— an improvement in the clarity of existing texts, making

them simpler and more accessible,

4.3.1
As a result of the all the work carried out under the
above-mentioned communications, the Council called on the
Commission to prepare a multiannual action plan meeting all
the requirements to achieve simplification and improvement of
the CFP.
in December 2005 the Commission
published the Communication 2006-2008 Action Plan for
simplifying and improving the Common Fisheries Policy (11).

In response,

4.3.2
Commission comprises:

The 2006-2008 Action Plan presented by the

— a methodology for simplifying and improving the CFP; and

— an indication of the initiatives that should, as a matter of

priority, be simplified and improved.

The

approach is

action plan's

4.3.3
straightforward,
providing an overall picture of the areas (enforcement, fishing
effort, funding, etc.) in which action is to be taken to simplify
and improve legislative texts. For each of them, it indicates the
necessary measures, who should be involved in the simplifica-
tion process and the relevant deadlines within the 2006-2008
timeframe. Lastly,
it lays down three types of legislation for
each of these areas:

— a reduction of costs and constraints for public administra-

tions,

— instruments whose review has already been started;

— alleviation of administrative costs and constraints for fish-

— new legislation to be drawn up in the coming years; and

ermen.

The EESC believes that, with regard to any work to
4.2.5
make texts clearer, a special effort should be made to consoli-
date them. Continual
regulations from
previous years makes the documents much more difficult to
understand.

reference to other

The latter communication highlights the fact

4.2.6
that
some chapters of the CFP are particularly difficult to carry
through: this applies to fisheries enforcement, because of the
differences between Member States concerning implementation,
and resource conservation measures, due to the combined
implementation of different management tools.

4.2.7
Overall analysis reveals that while allowing for the
inherent complexity of CFP management, the existing rules
have gradually become excessively complex.

The EESC considers that

4.2.8
the Commission should
approach the improvement and simplification of CFP legislation
by putting particular emphasis on enforcement and resource
conservation measures. The action of the recently-established
European Fisheries Control Agency should be stepped up in
this direction.

— legislative instruments now in force which must however

be simplified as a matter of priority.

4.3.4
The legislative instruments now in force as the main
focus for the start of the CFP simplification plan for the 2006-
2008 period. They all concern measures for the management
and monitoring of fishing activities.

4.3.5
The EESC endorses the choice of these two areas for
priority action under the plan, as they account for much of the
complexity of current legislation. The Commission will subse-
quently have to continue the process of simplifying and
improving the rest of the CFP.

4.3.6
Legislative instruments whose review has already
started and for which simplifying principles have been imple-
mented will continue to be treated in accordance with the plan
to improve legislation. This is the case with the European Fish-
eries Fund, and with the general provisions concerning the
authorisation of fishing in the waters of a third country under
a fisheries agreement. Both of these legislative instruments,
which have already been simplified by the Commission, have
met with a positive response in Committee opinions.

(11) COM(2005) 647 final of 8.12.2005.

C 309/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

4.3.7
Under the action plan, the simplification objectives set
for new legislation to be drawn up in the coming years will be
systematically observed.

to be appropriate.

The EESC supports the general approach of the 2006-
4.3.8
2008 action plan, considering it
Imple-
menting the plan, as set out in the Annex to the action plan,
however, will require a major simplification drive if the dead-
lines are to be met. It is crucial that the efforts and under-
standing of the Member States, the European Parliament and
the fisheries sector, through its RACs and the ACFA, together
with the Fisheries Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee, be
combined.

4.3.9
on the following areas and legislative instruments:

Implementation of the action plan focuses as a priority

Con se r va ti on of fi sh stoc ks

— TACs/Quotas, fishing effort

— Technical measures
marine organisms

for

the protection of

juveniles of

— Collection and management of data for the CFP

M oni t or i ng o f f i sh i ng a c ti v i ti e s

— Monitoring — Body of legislation

— Monitoring — Computerisation

— Reporting obligations

— Authorisation to fish outside Community waters.

framework

4.3.10
Each of these seven legislative instruments is detailed
in the Annex to the action plan through sheets which set out
the planned simplification measures to improve the existing
environment
and
regulatory
administrative
concerned. For each measure,
it specifies the programming
envisaged with details of the different actors involved in the
measures and a list of the instruments to be simplified together
with reference documents necessary for considering simplifica-
tion.

4.3.11
The EESC, having examined each of the seven sheets
in detail, assures the Commission that it considers its handling
of reform and simplification to be appropriate and that, if all
the steps indicated in each of the sheets are completed within
the deadlines set, the 2006-2008 action plan will bring very
significant improvements to the Community's fisheries legisla-
tion.

4.3.12
In Sheet 1, the action plan proposes simplification
measures concerning TACs/Quotas-fishing effort. It fundamen-
tally addresses the annual Council regulations which fix the
fishing opportunities for the following year, altering the struc-
ture of the provisions laying down conditions for the exploita-
tion of fishery resources, of targeting the decisions at uniform
groups, and of drawing up multiannual management plans.

4.3.13
The EESC considers the simplification measures put
forward in Sheet 1 to be appropriate, with separate treatment
of the different aspects of conservation policy, regulation on
the basis of uniform groups, and implementation through
multiannual management plans being crucial.

4.3.13.1
Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the lack
of time between the date of delivery of the scientific opinions
and the December Council meeting which sets the TACs,
quotas and other highly important management measures such
as limits on fishing efforts, makes it difficult to hold all the
necessary consultations
rules
rushed and complex decision-making
resulting from this
process may contain technical or
legal shortcomings that
require amending regulations, further complicating the rules
and their implementation. The inadequate consultation of fish-
ermen and other stakeholders is highly detrimental
to the
understanding, acceptance, application and, consequently, the
effectiveness of these rules.

and reach agreement. The

4.3.13.2
Similarly, the EESC is of the opinion that the deci-
sion-making process of the regional fisheries organisations also
suffers from the lack of time between the delivery of the scien-
tific opinion and the meeting of the decision-making body. The
effects of this lack of time are the same as those outlined in the
previous point.

4.3.13.3
Regarding the ‘uniform groups’ approach proposed
by the Commission, the EESC sees this as entirely appropriate
particularly if, as it hopes,
this means a ‘uniform fishery’
approach and a two-fold regulation: a horizontal framework
regulation and an implementing regulation for each fishery.

4.3.13.4
In the Committee's view, moreover, experience
shows that recovery plans and multiannual management plans
have generated wide-ranging consultation and a high level of
agreement. Once such plans are adopted, they lighten the deci-
sion-making procedures for the years in question. However, the
EESC considers that they must be in keeping with the present
division of powers between the Council and the Commission,
and must be open to revision, given the shifting nature of the
criteria used to evaluate the state of the relevant stocks.

that

reform of

The EESC believes

4.3.14
the decision-
making procedure for resource management measures, guaran-
teeing that the rules are simplified and made more effective,
depends on bringing forward the date of delivery of the scien-
tific opinions and recommendations (from ICES-ACFM for
Community waters, and the scientific committees of
the
regional
fisheries organisations for non-Community waters),
enabling real consultation to take place with the RACs and
ACFA. It may also require spreading the TACs/Quotas package
over several Councils, as well as adjusting the management
year to bring it closer into line with the biological year and to
take account of a better match with the market. This process is

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/65

therefore a comprehensive one, going beyond front-loading
alone. The EESC considers that every aspect will have to be
examined in detail,
leading in turn to the widest possible
consultation with the Member States, fishermen and the other
stakeholders.

approach and a Commission implementing regulation for the
technical and administrative aspects. The EESC restates its
concern, expressed in point 4.3.14 above, regarding the powers
which the Commission proposes to assume.

4.3.15
The purpose of Sheet 2 is to reform existing legisla-
tion on the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, by
gradually grouping together technical measures by fishery.
While the EESC welcomes this fishery-by-fishery approach for
all management measures, it feels it is primarily applicable to
the technical measures. The system put
forward by the
Commission is based on an adjustment of the structure of the
legal rules relating to technical measures, proposing that the
in
Council should regulate the general guiding principles
succinct form, while the Commission should stipulate the tech-
nical aspects in greater detail. The EESC is concerned at a
simplification which would result in the Commission making
laws by assuming powers at present held by the Council of
Ministers. The Committee therefore considers that while the
legislation should be drawn up as proposed in the simplifica-
tion measure, the final decision should be submitted to the
Council.

4.3.16
Regarding the possibility of authorising Member
States to adopt local technical measures, as outlined in Sheet 2,
the EESC believes
that such authorisation could generate
inequalities and instances of discrimination between fishermen
of different Member States if the measure were to be used
improperly or not sufficiently monitored, clashing with the
necessary harmonisation of CFP rules. Member States' requests
in this regard should therefore be approved by the Council.

4.3.17
The Commission considers that, in order to imple-
ment the proposed measures, prior consultation of the sector
should be increased, the performance of the technical measures
applied assessed, certain existing technical provisions clarified,
leaflets and information documents produced,
information
technology used, and fishermen's reporting obligations reduced.
The EESC, while convinced that all these actions are necessary,
would point out to the Commission that the use of information
technologies for data input and management inevitably requires
a process of adjustment and financial support allowing vessels
to adopt
these new technologies. A reasonable transitional
period must therefore be granted in order to define the process
in agreement with the technical specialists, fishermen and the
Member States, provide full guarantees of commercial confiden-
tiality, secure the trust and support of stakeholders, test the
process under real conditions, contribute to the increased finan-
cial cost of the new equipment to be introduced and, conse-
quently, to ensure the success of the simplification reform.

Sheet 3 proposes to reduce the number of legal texts
4.3.18
on the collection of management of data for the CFP. As for
Sheet 2, simplification entails adjusting the current legal struc-
ture on the basis of a Council regulation for the general

4.3.19
As part of its simplification approach, in Sheet 3 the
Commission proposes a multiannual programme to collect and
manage data in order to reduce the administrative workload of
the Member States. The Committee considers the Commission's
proposal
to the
to be both timely and necessary, subject
comments set out in point 4.3.17 above.

4.3.20
Sheet 4 sets out to reform the current legislation on
monitoring by revising the current regulations and bringing
them into line with CFP reform. The EESC views the revision of
the monitoring regulations as being of the utmost importance
to harmonising the various rules in order to prevent diverging
interpretations. All inspection and monitoring provisions must
implementation
in defining inspection,
be very explicit
methods and forms of practice. In any case, the EESC calls on
the Commission to ensure that in simplifying monitoring legis-
lation, the existence of the European Fisheries Control Agency
is never overlooked.

fishing activities and on means of

In Sheet 5, the Commission proposes a review of all
4.3.21
It envisages
provisions on monitoring and computerisation.
drawing up regulations once the Council has decided on the
proposal from the Commission on electronic recording and
remote
reporting of
sensing (12).
the
management of fishing agreements with third countries with
regard to fishing licences, and catch and effort data associated
with these agreements. The EESC, agreeing that computerisa-
tion of monitoring systems is necessary, would repeat its views
set out in point 4.3.16 above on the need for a transitional
period in applying information technologies.

the computerisation of

It also envisages

Sheet 6 provides for simplification of the entire body
4.3.22
of CFP legislation in order to remove provisions introducing
reporting obligations of little or no value to the satisfactory
implementation of the CFP. The EESC considers the removal of
such provisions to be a necessary part of the simplification
process, reducing the workload of those involved and of the
Member States.

Lastly, Sheet 7 envisages simplifying authorisation to
4.3.23
fish outside Community waters, by means of a reform of the
arrangements for the management of fishing agreements with
third countries. Simplification entails adjusting the current legal
structure to earmark the basic principles for the Council and
the technical and administrative aspects for the Commission.
The Committee considers such simplification to be necessary,
and urges the Commission to give consideration to drawing up
a standard agreement as a basis for negotiating fishing agree-
ments with all third countries, as well as to granting and
issuing fishing licences electronically.

(12) COM(2004) 724 final.

C 309/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

4.3.24
The EESC believes that simplifying and improving
the CFP for fleets operating outside Community waters also
requires a fishery-by-fishery approach, and particular treatment
at all levels: fleet, authorisation, licences, permits, declarations,
etc. The EESC is convinced that vessels flying EU Member State
flags and operating in waters outside Community jurisdiction
should be subject to rights and obligations adapted to the
resource they are fishing and the zone in which they are
located. The EESC therefore asks the Commission to include
this objective in its action plan, which must not be restricted to
the ‘fisheries agreements’ (or partnership agreements) alone. In
this connection,
the EESC would emphasise the need for
compliance with the social clause accepted by the Community
social partners.

Lastly,

4.3.25
the EESC considers that combating illegal,
unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, which is one of the
CFP's objectives (particularly in its external aspect), also merits
mention in the action plan, in the form of an objective aimed
at defining the simplest and most effective means possible of
combating such IUU fishing. The EESC believes that
this
process should focus on access to consumer markets, strength-
ening the powers of the relevant port States, and banning high
seas transshipment.

5. Specific comments

The 2006-2008 action plan, as set out in the Commis-
5.1
sion's communication, is of vital importance in improving the
Community's fisheries legislation. No further important legisla-
tive instruments have been identified in the fields of monitoring
or fishery resource management which need to be added to
those proposed by the Commission. The Committee therefore
urges the Commission to implement them without delay.

5.2
The Committee believes that among all the legislative
instruments which it is proposed to improve and simplify, that

Brussels, 5 July 2006.

on TACs/Quotas and fishing effort is of particular importance
to the implementation of multiannual management plans.

Carrying out the 2006-2008 action plan may require
5.3
the Commission to draw up new implementing regulations.
The EESC does not think that
this increase will pose any
problems. What is important is that, even if the Community
acquis grows, regulations should be clearer, targeted on the rele-
vant fisheries, easily understood and as consolidated as far as is
possible.

5.4 With regard to the latter aspect, the Committee would
draw the Commission's attention to the difficulty in inter-
preting the current fisheries legislation, with repeated references
to other regulations, directives and communications. Consolida-
tion of documents is crucial is they are to be easily read and
understood.

Coordination between the Commission and the Euro-
5.5
pean Fisheries Control Agency is very important in applying
the monitoring rules. The European Fisheries Control Agency
will have to work to standardise criteria in order to resolve
differing interpretations of fisheries monitoring legislation by
the Member States — a frequent source of complaint by fish-
ermen.

Lastly,

5.6
the Committee sees computerisation of Com-
munity fisheries legislation as important for electronic access to
Community texts. The introduction of new information tech-
nologies to fishing vessels must however be carried out gradu-
ally, and without cost
to fishermen, since some computer
methods may not be appropriate to them.

5.7
The Committee calls upon the Commission to resolve
any difficulties which may arise regarding the 2006-2008
action plan, being convinced that the plan is essential and will
be of benefit to the Community fisheries sector.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND