Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products {SEC(2006) 1218}
Date: 2006-09-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, aquaculture, common organisation of markets, consumer information, fishery product, intervention policy, marketing standard, producer organisation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.9.2006 
COM(2006) 558 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

On the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common 
organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products 

{SEC(2006) 1218} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  41  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  104/20001  provides  that  the  Commission 
shall  submit  to  the  Council  and  the  Parliament  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  this 
Regulation by 31 December 2005. The present report is based upon stocktaking of the 
application  of  the  common  organisation  of  the  markets  (hereinafter  "the  CMO"). 
Moreover,  the  Commission  services  organised  consultations  by  way  of  questionnaires 
and received responses from 22 Member States and 3 stakeholders. 

Pursuant to Article 32 of the Treaty, fishery products fall under “agricultural products” 
and,  therefore,  are  subject  to  the  principles  of  the  common  agricultural  policy.  The 
Council of Ministers adopted a first market organisation in fishery products by way of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2142/702.  

The  CMO  was  the  first  component  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (hereinafter  "the 
CFP”).  Ever  since,  it  has  become  one  of  the  CFP  pillars.  Like  the  agricultural  market 
organisations,  its  legal  basis  is  Article  37  of  the  Treaty.  The  CMO  was  created  to 
achieve  the  objectives  laid  down  in  Article  33  of  the  Treaty  in  the  fishery  sector,  in 
particular to provide market stability and to guarantee a fair income for producers. 

The  current  CMO  laid  down  in  Regulation 104/2000  has  moved  away  from  a  mere 
intervention  system  and  now  lays  more  emphasis  on  sustainability-supportive  fishing 
and marketing activities. The CMO is run on the basis of 23 implementing Regulations 
(see Annex 1). The 2003 Act of Accession introduced sprat and dolphin-fish and added 
new marketing sizes for Baltic herring. 

2. 

MARKETING STANDARDS 

The common marketing standards are essential for the proper functioning of the internal 
market  and  the  intervention  mechanisms.  They  were  last  amended  by  way  of 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/20053 in order to include sprat.  

The standards have also contributed to increase the quality of products. Article 6(1) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/964 excludes products of freshness category B from 
financial  compensation  for  withdrawals.  A  Commission  staff  working  paper  on  the 
application  of  this  Article5  confirmed  that  the  improvement  of  product  quality  was 
mainly related to the decrease in landings of category B products.  

The  standards  apply  to  the  first  sale  of  fishery  products,  which  is  regulated  by  the 
Member  States,  with  different  situations  prevailing  therein.  The  first  sale  is  organised 
through  mandatory  auctions  in  8  Member  States  and  direct  sales  to  buyers  in  12 
Member  States.  There  are  non-mandatory  auctions  in  2  Member  States  and  a  mixed 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession. 
OJ L 236, 27.10.1970, p. 5. 
OJ L 132, 26.5.2005, p. 15. 
OJ L 334, 23.12.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2005 (OJ 
L 132, 26.5.2005, p. 15). 
SEC(2001) 1764, 7.11.2001. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
system involving auctions and direct sales in 6 Member States. Although auctions may 
facilitate control and traceability operations, direct sales may be more suitable for fish 
destined to processing and aquaculture products. 

The grading for freshness is relatively simple, easy to use and adapted to major groups 
of  species.  Certain  European  electronic  fish  auctions  also  apply  the  Quality  Index 
Method (QIM), a more detailed grading system for individual species. QIM is suitable 
to auctions offering a limited number of species. Nevertheless, it is more complex and 
thus more difficult to apply when grading numerous products. 

The marketing sizes are generally expressed by weight. In parallel, Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  850/986  lays  down  minimum  biological  sizes  in  length.  Although  marketing 
sizes  are  not  intended  for  the  protection  of  fisheries  resources,  they  must  not  conflict 
with  conservation  measures.  The  application  of  marketing  and  biological  sizes  is  not 
always easy. In certain species, a given length may correspond to different weights. This 
may  be  due  to  seasonal  variations  in  weight.  In  those  species  bearing  both  marketing 
and biological sizes, there might be occurrences of compliance with the former but not 
with the latter and vice-versa. Moreover, marketing and biological sizes do not apply to 
the same species.  

The  Commission  services  carried  out  15  inspection  missions  in  the  Member  States  in 
2004  and  2005  to  evaluate  compliance  with  marketing  standards.  The  observance  of 
marketing  standards  varies  significantly  with  the  Member  States.  The  implementation 
depends largely on the volumes of landings: in coastal fisheries with reduced amounts, 
fish  is  usually  sorted  using  traditional  practices.  The  application  of  the  standards 
improves  where  producer  organisations  (POs)  are  involved  in  controls  performed  in 
single  points  like  auctions.  With  the  refinement  of  applicable  conservation  measures, 
the relationship between marketing standards and minimum biological sizes is an issue 
which may need to be revisited. 

16  Member  States  have  reported  controls  of  compliance  with  marketing  standards.  4 
new  Member  States  have  already  conducted  checks  in  their  territories.  Infringements 
were detected in 9 Member States.  

As for products from third countries, certain Member States have reported problems of 
application  of  the  standards  during  customs  supervision.  In  addition,  some  Member 
States  detected  considerable  quantities  of  imported  frozen  fish  below  the  minimum 
marketing  sizes.  The  reason  is  that  the  standards  do  not  apply  to  products  in  frozen 
state. 

With regard to canned sardines, on 23 October 2002 the WTO Dispute Settlement Body 
ruled in favour of Peru in the case Peru vs. European Communities (WT/DS231). The 
Community was bound to bring Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/897 into conformity 
with the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Codex Alimentarius 
standard STAN94. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1181/20038 introduced new trade 

6 

7 

8 

OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1568/2005 (OJ L 
252, 28.9.2005, p. 2) 
OJ  L  212, 22.7.89,  p.  79.  Regulation  as  amended by  Commission  Regulation  (EC) No 1181/2003  (OJ  L 
165, 3.7.2003, p. 17). 
OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 17. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
descriptions  for  20  sardine-type  species  and  maintained  the  name  “sardines”  for  the 
species  Sardina  pilchardus.  Ever  since,  only  few  instances  of  canned  sprat  marketed 
under the name “sardines” and not properly labelled were detected in some Central and 
Northern Member States. 

3. 

CONSUMER INFORMATION 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 2065/20019  has  generally  enhanced  the  consumer 
awareness  about  fishery  products  although  with  differences  between  Member  States. 
The main issues of interest in some Member States are the origin of fish and the method 
of  production.  In  other  Member  States,  consumers  are  more  concerned  about  other 
aspects such as quality, price and whether fish was caught in a sustainable manner.  

The number of species included in the national lists of commercial designations varies 
significantly  with  the  Member  States.  So  far  the  designations  did  not  have  a  negative 
impact on the circulation of fishery products across the Community. The Commission 
services are currently preparing a database gathering all the national designations. 

Nine Member States have modified their lists. The number of modifications varied from 
1  to  12  and  the  species  added  ranged  from  a  few  to  164.  Practically  no  species  was 
removed from the lists. 8 Member States issued provisional designations which in most 
cases resulted in definitive designations. 

In 2002 and 2003, the implementation by Member States of the Regulation gave rise to 
many  questions  about 
transitory 
arrangements foreseen in the Regulation were not limited in time. Since 2004, however, 
the implementation by Member States has not triggered any specific complains. 

interpretation.  Furthermore, 

their  correct 

the 

13  Member  States  have  conducted  checks  of  compliance  with  traceability,  including 
four  new  Member  States.  As  a  result,  8  Member  States  detected  a  number  of 
infringements. The requirements most commonly missing or wrongly indicated are the 
catch  area,  in  particular  the  country  of  origin  of  farmed  products,  and  the  production 
method as well as the scientific name for traceability purposes. 

4. 

PRODUCER ORGANISATIONS 

4.1. 

Recognition of producer organisations 

In  2005  there  were  203  POs  recognised  in  16  Member  States10  (see  also  Annex  2). 
Spain,  France,  Italy,  Germany  and  the  UK  account  for  74%  of  the  total  number.  The 
constitution of 6 POs in the new Member States is worth noting. 5 POs have members 
from  other  Member  States  in  Denmark  (1),  Spain  (2)  and  the  Netherlands (2).  Some 
POs stopped their activities in Spain (2), France (1), Portugal, Sweden (1) and the UK 
(2).  This  was  mainly  due  to  decreased  landings,  reduced  membership  and  lack  of 
revenues. 

9 
10 

OJ L 278, 23.10.2001, p. 6. 
OJ C 293, 25.11.2005, p. 15. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
86% of POs are devoted to the catch sector. 28 POs deal with aquaculture activities in 7 
Member  States,  86%  of  which  are  situated  in  Spain,  France  and  Italy.  Furthermore,  9 
associations  of  national  POs  are  established  in  3  Member  States  (4  in  France,  3  in 
Germany and 2 in Italy).  

The  operation  of  POs  has  contributed  to  the  sustainable  use  of  resources  and  the 
improvement  of  marketing  conditions.  The  involvement  of  POs  in  intervention  and 
fisheries management varies with the Member States. As regards affiliation, more than 
50% of the fishermen belong to POs in 10 Member States. Membership ranges between 
12%  and  23%  in  3  Member  States.  As  for  aquaculture  producers,  the  percentage  is 
higher than 75% in 5 Member States and smaller than 10% in two Member States. 

8  Member  States  carried  out  checks  on  the  conditions  for  recognition.  As  a  result,  2 
Member States withdrew the recognition of 12 POs. 3 Member States report checks on 
the activities of POs with members from other Member States. 

In  2003,  the  Dutch  Competition  Authority  (NMa)  detected  a  competition  issue  in  the 
North-Sea shrimp sector and imposed fines on 8 Dutch wholesalers and 8 POs from the 
Netherlands, Germany and Denmark for violation of Dutch and European competition 
laws. The NMa found that the parties concerned entered into prohibited agreement with 
each other. This case has shown the importance of the relation between competition and 
common  market  organisations.  POs  are  exempted  from  competition  rules  as  long  as 
their activities remain within the bounds of the tasks entrusted by the CMO.  

In  order  to  stimulate  cross-border  co-operation  between  POs,  Commission  Regulation 
(EC) No 1767/200411 introduced the recognition of associations of POs from different 
Member States. The associations have the same tasks and obligations than POs with the 
exception of operational programmes and extension of rules. In 2005 one association of 
POs comprising 2 Dutch and 6 German POs was recognised in Germany. 

Aids  for  the  establishment  of  POs  are  available  under  the  Financial  Instrument  for 
Fisheries  Guidance  (see  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2792/199912,  the  FIFG 
Regulation). The continuation of these aids for 2007-2013 under the European Fisheries 
Fund (EFF) is currently being discussed. 

4.2. 

Extension of rules 

Four  Member  States  applied  the  extension  of  PO’s  rules  to  non-member  producers.  2 
applications  were  accepted  in  Belgium,  2  in  Spain,  7  in  France  and  one  in  Italy.  The 
extensions affected 12 species in Belgium, 3 in Spain, 3 in France and one in Italy. The 
percentage of non-members affected varied from less than 10% in Belgium to 53% in 
France.  The  duration  ranged  between  3  and  12  months.  No  extension  was  granted  to 
aquaculture products. 

The  measures  most  frequently  extended  were  catch  restriction  as  well  as  ban  on 
landings and first sale. The observance of certain withdrawal prices was also applied in 
Belgium and Italy. Non-members were made liable for fees related to extension of rules 

11 
12 

OJ L 315, 14.10.2004, p. 28. 
OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2005 (OJ L 
81, 30.03.2005, p. 1) 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
only  in  Belgium.  On  the  other  hand,  despite  an  extension  of  withdrawal  rules,  no 
Member State granted compensation to non-members for products which could not be 
marketed. 

4.3. 

Operational programmes 

The  operational  programmes  have  contributed  to  improve  the  organisation  of  POs’ 
activities  and  their  financial  returns.  Yet  there  are  factors  outside  the  control  of  POs 
which  may  affect  their  production  and  marketing  possibilities,  i.e.  climatic  and 
biological fluctuations, conservation measures. 

There  are  indications  that  POs  found  it  difficult  to  anticipate  their  production  and 
marketing activities. This is due to the unpredictability of fishing activities and related 
problems  to  match  supply  with  market  demand.  The  first  year  of  application  of  the 
programmes,  some  POs  encountered  problems  with  procedural  deadlines  and  targets. 
Certain  Member  States  also  experienced  difficulties  to  ensure  the  application  of  the 
programmes and to implement payment arrangements. 

10 Member States carried out checks on the operational programmes. Failures to draw 
up and implement programmes were detected in 6 and 2 Member States, respectively.  

The operational programmes provide POs with anticipatory instruments and thus more 
responsibilities in the management of fishing and marketing operations. They also allow 
national  authorities  to  follow-up  the  fisheries  activities  of  the  POs  all  along  the  year. 
Available  information  shows  that  operational  programmes  have  been  working  in  a 
satisfactory manner. The POs very seldom revised the programmes in spite of the bad 
market  situation  and  increased  withdrawals  for  certain  products  during  2001-2004.  In 
order to play a more effective role on the markets, the programmes should focus more 
on measures to spread out supplies throughout the fishing year and the establishment of 
links between producers and downstream stages of the marketing chain. 

The  European  Agriculture  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGGF)  provides  for  aids 
for  the  preparation  of  operational  programmes.  Annex  3  shows  the  evolution  of  these 
expenses. The aid is limited to 5 years in order to enable the gradual adaptation of POs 
to  fulfil  their  obligations.  Only  one  Member  State  made  use  of  the  additional  aids 
contemplated in the FIFG Regulation. 

4.4. 

Quality improvement plans 

Only  3  Member  States  granted  specific  recognition  to  POs  which  submitted  quality 
improvement plans: 2 POs in Spain (aquaculture sector), one in France and one in Italy 
(both in the catch sector). On one occasion one Member State withdrew recognition due 
to the fact that the affected PO stopped its activities. 

There is financial support for the preparation of such plans under the FIFG Regulation. 
The continuation of this aid under the EFF for 2007-2013 is currently being discussed. 

5. 

INTERBRANCH ORGANISATIONS 

In  2005  there  were  only  4  organisations  recognised  in  3  Member  States:  2  in  Spain 
(catch and aquaculture sectors), one in France (aquaculture) and one in Italy (catch and 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
aquaculture). The reasons for this low number are not entirely clear and may be due to 
poor co-operation between the different sub-sectors of the value chain. The extension of 
rules to non-members has not been applied yet. 

6. 

PRICES AND INTERVENTION 

6.1. 

Prices 

The  guide  prices  are  intended  to  reflect  the  market  situation  for  relevant  species.  In 
order to play a stabilising role on the markets, they should broadly follow market trends 
while  remaining  below  the  market  prices  with  the  necessary  safety  margin  to  take 
account of price fluctuations. Annex 4 shows the evolution of market prices and guide 
prices  during  2001-2004.  In  certain  Member  States,  however,  there  are  important 
differences between the guide prices and the market prices for a few species. The guide 
prices also contribute to prevent excessive price variations from one fishing year to the 
next. 

The market for white fish experienced considerable price drops in 2002 and 2003. This 
is  a  paradoxical  situation  given  the  steady  decrease  in  Community  catches  of  these 
species  and  the  establishment  of  recovery  plans.  A  possible  explanation  is  that 
Community landings would not be able to provide the processing industry with regular 
supplies in appropriate quantities and sizes. 

Prices for many important commercial species have not followed production cost trends 
in recent years. For a number of whitefish species, for example, average first-sale prices 
stagnated or even decreased between 2000 and the first half of 2005 (see Annex 5). 

The  increasing  share  of  imports  on  the  EU  market  for  fish  and  the  development  of 
aquaculture are often blamed for stagnating or falling fish prices. However, there is no 
evidence for that. Actually, the contribution to reducing fishers’ income is probably less 
important than other factors, such as the concentration of sales in big distribution chains 
and  greater  competition  between  fish  and  other  food  products,  putting  considerable 
pressure  on  wholesalers  to  cut  their  prices  and  profit  margins.  This  reverberates  all 
along the market chain but hits primary producers. 

6.2. 

Intervention 

The  CMO  has  largely  reduced  the  overall  level  of  intervention.  This  is  reflected  in  a 
moderate yearly expenditure between €9 million and €12 million for 2001-2004. These 
figures are significantly lower than ECU 33 million reached in the 1990s (see Annex 6). 
Annexes 7, 8, 9 10 and 11 show the expenses of the different intervention mechanisms. 
The  expenditure  of  intervention  and  operational  programmes  is  guaranteed  by  the 
EAGGF.  As  regards  the  new  financial  framework  for  2007-2013,  the  European 
Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  laid  down  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1290/200513 will continue to finance the expenditure relating to fisheries markets. 

13 

OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The FIDES II System of electronic transmission of data between the Member States and 
the  Commission  pursuant  to  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  80/200114  and 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2306/200215 became fully operational in 2003. In the 
beginning,  some  Member  States  experienced  problems  with  the  functioning  of  the 
system but their notifications generally improved in subsequent years. 

Only  one  Member  State  detected  irregularities  of  the  intervention  mechanisms,  in 
particular withdrawals. The Commission performed audits of intervention expenditures 
in  3  Member  States  in  2003,  2004  and  2005.  The  administration  and  control  of  the 
intervention  in  Ireland  was  deficient  in  2002-2003.  Main  findings  are  related  to 
insufficient  monitoring  over  POs  to  ensure  that  they  take  every  measure  to  avoid 
intervention  and  improper  control  over  the  destination  of  fish  withdrawn  from  the 
market. There have been instances where fishing operations were carried out for the sole 
purpose of benefiting from intervention. 

6.2.1.  Withdrawals 

The  CMO  has  decreased  the  compensation  for  fish  withdrawn  from  the  market. 
Withdrawals  are  intended  to  occasional  excess  production  which  the  market  cannot 
absorb. During 2001-2004, the quantities withdrawn accounted for less than 2% of the 
production of pelagic species and around 1% of the production of whitefish (see Annex 
12).  

Yet  withdrawals  of  white  fish  species  with  reduced  Community  production  increased 
significantly  in  2002  and  2003.  In  a  context  of  decreasing  stocks,  the  withdrawal  of 
species  subject  to  conservation  measures  can  be  questioned,  in  particular  if  the  fish 
taken off the market is destined to destruction.  

Checks on payment applications were carried out in 7 Member States. The information 
did not always correspond with the quantities actually withdrawn in 3 Member States. 

6.2.2.  Carry-over 

The  CMO  has  substantially  increased  the  aid  for  processing  and  storage  of  products 
with a view to their reintroduction into the market. The carry-over operations contribute 
to reduce the destruction of fish and to enhance the returns of products.  

The  procedures  for  granting  the  aid  are  more  complex  than  those  concerning 
withdrawals. The grant of advances is related to the aid but is not linked to the value of 
the  stored  product.  In  certain  circumstances,  the  possibility  to  withdraw  fish 
permanently from the market could be more attractive to POs than the processing and 
storage of products.  

Five  Member  States  carried  out  checks  on  the  eligibility  of  products.  Occurrences  of 
non compliance were detected in 2 Member States  

14 
15 

OJ L 13, 17.1.2001, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession. 
OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 94. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.2.3. 

Independent withdrawals and carry-over 

Independent  interventions  are  intended  to  provide  regional  markets  with  greater 
stability.  This  mechanism  gives  POs  more  autonomy  since  they  are  in  charge  of  the 
fixation of the intervention prices. The 2004 enlargement of the EU introduced sprat and 
dolphin fish in the list of eligible products. 

Checks on payment applications were carried out in 6 Member States. The information 
did not always correspond with the quantities actually withdrawn in 2 Member States. 

6.2.4.  Private storage 

Private storage applies to certain products frozen on board vessels. Only one Member 
State  applied  the  private  storage  scheme  in  2002  and  2004.  This  Member  State 
performed checks to ensure the eligibility of products and detected some products not 
meeting the conditions. 

6.3. 

Tuna for processing 

The  compensatory  allowance  for  tuna  delivered  to  the  canning  industry  is  the  only 
intervention  mechanism  based  on  a  direct  aid  to  producers.  It  was  introduced  to 
compensate  the  catching  sector  for  the  disadvantages  it  may  suffer  as  a  result  of  the 
autonomous  elimination  of  tariff  protection  on  products  imported  for  the  processing 
industry. The CMO has reduced the level at which the mechanism is activated. Thus the 
expenditure  has  been  substantially  reduced  (see  Annex  11).  The  development  of  fish 
processing  in  tropical  catch  areas  may  have  contributed  to  reduce  the  use  of  the 
allowance. The mechanism was triggered in 2001 (see Commission Regulation (EC) No 
2496/200116),  2003  (see  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 110/200517)  and  2004  (see 
Commission Regulations (EC) No 1342/200518 and No 1343/200519). 3 Member States 
have  made  use  of  the  allowance  so  far.  One  Member  State  performed  checks  on  the 
eligibility of products and detected products which did not meet the conditions. 

The Community producer price is intended to reflect market realities and to contribute 
to  prevent  excessive  price  variations.  Yet  the  market  for  tuna  experiences  important 
price fluctuations in periods of 4 or 5 years. 

On  28  January  2004,  the  Court  of  First  Instance  delivered  a  judgement  in  cases  T-
142/01  and  T-283/01.  These  cases  concerned  changes  in  PO  membership  and  their 
impact on the calculation of the allowance. The Court of First Instance confirmed that, 
since  the  allowance  is  intended  to  protect  the  incomes  of  Community  producers,  the 
final beneficiaries are the producers and not the POs themselves. 

16 
17 
18 
19 

OJ L 337, 20.12.2001, p. 25. 
OJ L 21, 25.1.2005, p. 5. 
OJ L 212, 17.8.2005, p. 5. 
OJ L 212, 17.8.2005, p. 8. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES 

7.1. 

Trade Policy measures 

Regulation No 104/2000 introduced tariff suspensions for certain products intended for 
processing.  Multi-annual  autonomous  tariff  quotas  were  opened  for  2001-2003  (see 
Council  Regulation 
(EC) 
No 1771/200321) and 2004-2006 (see Council Regulation (EC) No 379/200422). Annex 
13 shows the evolution of the products and the volumes of the quotas applicable from 
2001  to  2006.  Moreover,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2801/200023  established 
temporary suspensions for some products not available in the Community. 

(EC)  No  2803/200020  and  Council  Regulation 

Industry  claims  total  liberalisation  for  fishery  products  in  order  to  enhance  their 
competitiveness  and  to  enable  long  term  planning  of  their  activities.  The  products 
covered  by  the  current  suspensions  appear  insufficient  to  satisfy  the  supply  needs  for 
processing. In addition, the quotas for certain products are exhausted early in the year. 
The procedures to modify the quotas in the event of supply shortages have proved to be 
rather  complex  and  time  consuming.  Nevertheless,  the  current  WTO  negotiations  on 
market access make it not convenient to change the Community tariff structure at this 
juncture. Upon finalisation of the negotiations, the quotas seem to be the best possible 
solution to improve the supply conditions of industry. 

7.2. 

Reference prices and safeguard measures 

The  reference  prices  are  intended  to  provide  protection  against  imports  at  abnormally 
low  prices.  They  are  useful  as  indicators  of  import  price  evolution  and  as  warning 
system. 

The  safeguard  measures  apply  to  serious  market  disturbances  caused  by  imports  or 
exports. Since the completion of the Uruguay Round, safeguard measures are governed 
by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  3285/9424.  Pursuant  to  this,  safeguard  measures  were 
imposed  upon  imports  of  farmed  salmon  by  way  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
206/200525, in the meantime revoked by Commission Regulation (EC) No 627/200526. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The policy to reduce the levels of intervention has proved to be effective. The expenses 
derived  from  withdrawals  have  decreased  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  of 
Regulation No 104/2000. 

A  steady  shift  from  wasteful  withdrawals  to  carry-over  operations  can  be  observed. 
Recourse to intervention very much differs with the Member States. 

OJ L 331, 27.12.2000, p. 61. 
OJ L 258, 10.10.2003, p. 1. 
OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 7. 
OJ L 331, 27.12.2000, p. 1. 
OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/2004 (OJ L 
374, 22.12.2004, p. 1). 
OJ L 33, 5.2.2005, p. 8. 
OJ L 104, 23.4.2005, p. 4. 

8. 

1. 

2. 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 
26 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The operation of the CMO has confirmed the important role of POs. The introduction of 
operational  programmes  as  a  tool  for  balancing  supply  and  demand  has  been  well 
received by both Member States and POs. 

The  introduction  of  inter-branch  organisations  was  no  success.  This  may  reflect  an 
unsatisfactory co-operation between the different operators of the marketing chain. 

Market prices have not followed trends in production costs in spite of the establishment 
of conservation  measures and  recovery plans for a number of species. This makes the 
balancing  out  of  the  objectives  laid  down  in  Article  33  of  the  Treaty  even  more 
complex.  

The  Community  market  is  increasingly  dependent  on  imports  from  third  countries  in 
order to satisfy the needs of consumers and processing industry. 

EN 

11 

   EN