COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, common organisation of markets, fishery product

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.7.2011 
SEC(2011) 883 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products 

{COM(2011) 416 final} 
{SEC(2011) 884 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 

TABLES ..............................................................................................................................4 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................5 

SECTION  1:  PROCEDURAL  ISSUES  AND  CONSULTATION  OF  INTERESTED 

PARTIES .....................................................................................................................6 

1.1. 

Identification......................................................................................................6 

1.2.  Organisation and timing ....................................................................................6 

1.3. 

Internal consultations.........................................................................................6 

1.4.  Stakeholders consultation ..................................................................................7 

1.5. 

Impact Assessment Board opinion ....................................................................8 

SECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT .....................................................................................8 

2.1.  Common Market Organisation for fisheries and aquaculture products.............8 

2.2.  Presentation,  performance  of  the  CMO  instruments  and  the  views  of  the 

stakeholders .......................................................................................................9 

2.3.  The  reform  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  and  interaction  with  the  Market 

Policy 

...........................................................................................................16 

2.4.  Who is affected by the Market Policy and how?.............................................18 

2.5.  EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products..18 

2.6.  Cross cutting issues .........................................................................................19 

SECTION 3  PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION..................................................................20 

3.1.  Limited contribution of the EU Market Policy to sustainability of production20 

3.1.1. Numerous EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way ......................20 

3.1.2. Limited market incentives ...............................................................................21 

3.1.3. Wrong policy signals .......................................................................................21 

3.2.  Deterioration of market position of EU production.........................................21 

3.2.1. Limited  or  decreased  EU  production  opportunities  (fisheries  and  aquaculture)

21 

3.2.2. Fragmentation of the production side and strong concentration of demand ...22 

3.2.3. Lack of competitiveness of EU operators in an increasingly globalised market

22 

3.3. 

Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations...................................23 

3.3.1. Lack of predictability of the EU supply ..........................................................23 

3.3.2. Lack  of  anticipation  of  market  demand  by  EU  fishery  and  aquaculture 

producers .........................................................................................................24 

3.3.3. High volatility of first sale prices ....................................................................25 

3.4.  Under exploited market potential in the EU....................................................27 

1 

 
 
 
3.4.1. EU marketing standards partially outdated .....................................................27 

3.4.2. Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices...............................27 

3.5.  Complex framework and burdensome implementation...................................28 

3.5.1. Complex legal architecture ..............................................................................28 

3.5.2. Multiplicity and inconsistency of instruments.................................................28 

3.5.3. Burdensome management................................................................................28 

3.6.  The right for the EU to act...............................................................................28 

SECTION 4  OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................29 

4.1.  General objectives ...........................................................................................29 

4.2.  Specific objectives ...........................................................................................29 

4.2.1. Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable production practices.....29 

4.2.2. Improve market position of EU production.....................................................29 

4.2.3. Better connect the EU production to the market .............................................30 

4.2.4. Enhance market potential of EU products .......................................................30 

4.2.5. Support better governance and simplification .................................................30 

4.3. 

Intervention logic.............................................................................................31 

SECTION 5: POLICY OPTIONS .....................................................................................32 

5.1.  Reinforced  EU  policy  market  incentives  to  support  sustainable  production 

practices ...........................................................................................................32 

5.2. 

Improve market position of EU production.....................................................33 

5.3.  Better connect EU production to the EU market .............................................33 

5.4.  Enhance market potential of EU products .......................................................33 

5.5.  Support better governance and simplification .................................................34 

SECTION 6: METHODOLOGY USED...........................................................................35 

6.1.  Sources and data ..............................................................................................35 

6.2.  Methodology to assess impacts .......................................................................35 

SECTION 7: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS .........................................................................36 

7.1.  Option 1: Status quo (Base line scenario) .......................................................36 

7.2.  Option 2: Adjustments.....................................................................................37 

7.3.  Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy .................................................................38 

7.4.  Option 4: Deregulation ....................................................................................41 

SECTION 8: COMPARING THE OPTIONS BY OBJECTIVES....................................46 

SECTION 9: MONITORING AND EVALUATION .......................................................48 

ANNEX 1: Current legal framework: Council Reg.(EC) n°104/2000 on the Common 

Organisation of the Markets of fisheries and aquaculture products ................50 

2

 
 
ANNEX 1 Bis Reformed legal framework of the new Market Policy s of fishery and 

aquaculture products........................................................................................52 

ANNEX 2: Presentation and evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) n° 104/2000 on 
the Common Organisation of the Markets of fishery and aquaculture products
.........................................................................................................................53 

ANNEXE  3 :  Points  forts  –  points  faibles  de l’OCM des Produits de la pêche et de 

l’aquaculture   (Reg 104/2000)........................................................................61 

ANNEXE  4:  Points  de  vue  des  acteurs  sur  l’Organisation  Commune  des  Marchés 
(OCM)  des  produits  de  la  pêche  et  de  l’aquaculture  et  sur  la  réforme  de  la 
Politique de Marché.........................................................................................63 

ANNEX  5:  Presentation  and  comparison  of  the  CMO  for  Fruit  and  Vegetables  and 

the CMO for Fisheries and Aquaculture..........................................................71 

ANNEX  6:  EU  market  developments  and  trends  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture 

products ...........................................................................................................75 

ANNEX 7: Overview of the EU market for sustainable fishing certified products ..78 

ANNEX 8: European markets Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products.82 

3

 
 
 
TABLES 

Table 1: Producers Organisations by EU countries (1971-2011) ..................................................11 

Table 2: Producers Organisations representativeness by country and species..............................11 

Table 3: Key issues for stakeholders ...............................................................................................18 

Table 4: The five main problem areas of the current CMO and their underlying drivers..............20 

Table 5: Case study:  the reintroduction of the Bay of Biscay anchovy..........................................23 

Table 6: Case study: management of cod supply ............................................................................24 

Table 7: Case studies Nephrops: meeting the demand....................................................................25 

Table 8: Case study: Evolution of North Sea Saithe price at first sale...........................................26 

Table  9:  EAGF  spending  and  production  value  2005  for  CMO  of  agricultural  and  fisheries 
products ...................................................................................................................................26 

Table 10: Specific objectives for the main problems identified ......................................................29 

Table 11: Summary of impacts and administrative burden by option.............................................43 

Table 12: Comparing the options....................................................................................................46 

4

 
 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACFA:  Advisory  Committee  on  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture  

CFP: Common Fisheries Policy 

CMO: Common Market Organisation 

DG  AGRI:  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture 
and  Rural  Development  of 
the  European 
Commission 

Directorate-General 
DG 
Competition of the European Commission 

COMP: 

for 

DG  DEVCO:  Directorate  General 
for 
Development  and  Cooperation  of  the  European 
Commission 

DG  ECFIN:  Directorate  General  for  Economic 
the  European 
and  Financial  Affairs  of 
Commission 

EMPL: 

DG 
Employment,  Social  Affairs 
Opportunities of the European Commission 

Directorate-General 

for 
and  Equal 

DG  ENTR:  Directorate-General  for  Enterprise 
and Industry of the European Commission 

DG  ENV:  Directorate-General  for  Environment 
of the European Commission 

DG  MARE:  Directorate-General  for  Maritime 
the  European 
Affairs 
Commission 

and  Fisheries  of 

DG  MARKT:  Directorate-General  for  Internal 
the  European 
Market 
Commission 

and  Services 

of 

DG SANCO: Directorate-General for Health and 
Consumers of the European Commission 

DG  TAXUD:  Directorate-General  for  Taxation 
and Customs Union of the European Commission 

EAGF: European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

EFF: European Fisheries Fund 

EU: European Union 

FAPs: fisheries and aquaculture products 

FIFG:  Financial 
Guidance 

Instrument 

for  Fisheries 

FIDES: Fishery Data Exchange System 

HORECA: Hotel, Restaurant, Catering 

IAR: Impact Assessment Report 

IASG: Impact Assessment Steering Group 

IBO: Inter-branch Organisation 

MFN: Most Favoured Nation 

MS: Member States 

MT: Metric Tons 

MSC: Marine Stewardship Council 

MSY: Maximum Sustainable Yield 

NGO: Non-governmental Organisation 

PDO: Protected Designation of Origin 

PGI: Protected Geographical Indication 

PO: Producers Organisation 

POCP:  Programme  Opérationnel  de  Campagne 
de Pêche 

RACs: Regional Advisory Council  

SG:  Secretariat-General  of 
Commission 

TAC: Total Allowable Catches 

the  European 

TFS: Transferable Fishing Shares 

DG  TRADE:  Directorate-General  for  Trade  of 
the European Commission 

TFEU:  Treaty  on 
European Union  

the  Functioning  of 

the 

5 

 
 
 
SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1.  Identification 

Lead Directorate General: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) 

Other  Directorate-General  involved:  Secretariat-General  of  the  European  Commission  (SG),  Agriculture 
and  Rural  Development  (DG  AGRI),  Competition  (DG  COMP),  Development  and  Cooperation  (DG 
DEVCO),  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs  (DG  ECFIN),  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal 
Opportunities (DG EMPL), Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTR), Environment (DG ENV), Internal Market 
and Services (DG MARKT), Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) and Trade (DG TRADE) 

Agenda  Planning/WP  reference:  2011/MARE/004  as  part  of  the  package  on  the  reform  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy 

This Impact Assessment report concerns the proposal for a Council and European Parliament Regulation on 
the  reform  of  the  Market  Policy  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products.  This  is  part  of  the  legislative 
proposal on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 

1.2.  Organisation and timing 

In  2008,  DG  MARE  launched  a  series  of  evaluations  and  studies  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
104/2000  on  the  Common  Market  Organisation  (CMO)  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products1.  The 
objectives were to evaluate impacts and relevance of the instruments and provisions of this legislation. 
This  includes  an  evaluation  of  the  financial  and  non-financial  instruments  of  the  CMO2,  (published  in 
December 2008), a study on supply and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products in the European 
Union (EU)3 (completed in 2009), as well as an analysis of possible scenarios for a reform of the Market 
Policy. The latest study analyses options for the main objectives and instruments of the Market Policy and 
serves as a basis for this impact assessment (publication foreseen in the first quarter of 2011).  

The  outcomes  of  these  studies  have  been  published  on  the  internet  and  widely  discussed  with  interested 
parties in view of reaching a common analysis on the performance of the current legislation and possible 
improvements. 

It  is  planned  to  have  the  legislative  proposal  on  the  Market  Policy  for  fishery  and  aquaculture  products 
adopted by the Commission, together with the proposed Regulation on the new Common Fisheries Policy, 
in the second quarter of 2011. 

1.3.  Internal consultations 

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was 
created  in  September  2009.  Several  sub-groups  were  set  up  to  thoroughly  address  specific  issues  and 
policies. In this context, the steering group for the reform of Market Policy first gathered on 14th January 
2010.  The  agenda  consisted  of  evaluating  the  current  legislation,  market  development  and  reform 
objectives. A second meeting took place on 19th November 2010 and presented the draft impact assessment 
report of the options analysed for the reform. The minutes of this meeting are annexed to the current report. 

Members  of  the  IASG  Market  Policy:  AGRI,  COMP,  ECFIN,  EMPL,  ENTR,  ENV,  MARE  (lead  DG), 
MARKT, SANCO, TRADE and SG. 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery 
and aquaculture products, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_evaluation_market/index_en.htm  

3 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
1.4.  Stakeholders consultation  

Consultations  with  stakeholders  have  been  carried  out  at  various  levels  since  2008,  as  the  reform  of  the 
Market Policy was originally planned for 2009/2010. After the decision to merge the reform of the Market 
Policy with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) consultations and dialogue were completed by: 

(cid:190)  A  large  and  structured  internet-based  public  consultation  on  market  and  trade  issues  which  took 
place from 9th April 2009 to 31st December 2009 in the framework of the Green Paper for the reform of 
the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2009)163 final). Almost all of the 400 contributions received on 
the  Green  Paper  addressed  issues  related  to  a  reform  of  the  Market  Policy.  This  is  summarised  in  a 
specific chapter (3.4) in the Commission Staff Working Document on “Synthesis of the Consultation 
on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy” SEC(2010)428 final - April 2010. 

(cid:190)  Wide  consultation  of  the  industry  (producers,  importers,  processors,  retailers)  and  of  non-
governmental  actors  (development  and  environmental  non  governmental  organisations  (NGOs), 
consumers’  organisations) within the consultative bodies in place under the CFP (Regional Advisory 
Council  (RACs),  Advisory  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)  in  particular  Working 
Group III “Markets and trade”). 

(cid:190)  An  extensive  and  constructive  dialogue  with  MS  including  more  than  ten  ad  hoc  bilateral  meetings 
with  national  representatives  from  the  industry,  the  national  and  regional  administration,  and  the 
Management Committee. On average, these meetings attracted between 20 to 80 participants. 

(cid:190)  The  main  challenges  and  options  for  the  reform  of  the  Market  Policy  were  presented  at  the  EU 
Fisheries Directors General Meeting in Prague (July 2008) and to Ministers in charge of Fisheries at 
the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in June 2010. 

(cid:190)  A presentation of the main outcomes and external evaluations were provided to Member States (MS) 
(bilateral meetings and meetings of Management Committee) and European associations of economic 
operators in 2009. 

(cid:190)  Four  thematic  seminars  on  specific  topics  of  interest  for  a  reform  of  the  Market  Policy  were 
organised:  i)  “Price  formation  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products”  (December  2009),  ii)  “Quality 
and  promotion  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products”  (April  2010),  iii)  “Supply  of  the  EU  market” 
(April  2010),  iv)  “Main  issues  and  options  of  the  reform  of  the  Market  Policy”  (July  2010).  The 
minutes  and  presentations  of  these  seminars  that  attracted,  on  average,  around  100  participants  have 
been published on DG MARE's website4. 

(cid:190)  The European Parliament, in particular the Committee of Fisheries, has been closely associated with 
these consultations and events specifically via the EP position on the Green Paper on the CFP reform 
and  EP reports linked to market and trade issues5.  

The  Commission  minimum  standards  on  consultation  have  been  met.  Clear  consultation  documents  are 
available  in  the  form  of  a  Green  Paper  and  studies  have  been  published  on  the  internet.  A  significant 
amount  of  publicity  was  generated  around  this  debate.  All  relevant  target  groups  were  aware  of  these 
documents and the main positions at stake. Sufficient time for participation was ensured. Players have been 
consulted  in  various  fora  and  provided  with  feedback  (stakeholders’  conferences,  written  contributions, 
consultative groups, workshops, conferences and bilateral meetings etc.).  

4 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/news_and_events/events/ 

5 EP report on " Arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future 
reform of the CFP " (A7-0207/2010, Cadec report), and " A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable 
Development of European Aquaculture " (A7-0150/2010; Milena report) 

7

 
 
                                                 
1.5.  Impact Assessment Board opinion 

A first draft of the IA report (IAR) was discussed with the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 9 March 
2011. In its first opinion of 11 March 2011, the Board made recommendations for improvements; mainly 
to: 

•  Clearly  explain  why  and  how  a  reformed  CMO  pillar  could  contribute  to  overarching 

sustainability goal set within the context of the overall CFP reform 

•  Clarify and better justify the intervention logic 

•  Strengthen the analysis of impacts and the comparison of options 

A new version of the IAR took these comments into account by providing in particular: 

• 

• 

an earlier and more extensive presentation of the CMO tools and their evaluation (§2.2) 

analysis of the challenges of a new market policy in the wider context of the CFP reform (§2.3) 

•  more clarity on the intervention logic (§4.3) 

• 

strengthened analysis of impacts and comparison of option (section 6 on methodology and section 
8 on comparing the options) 

The IAB requested to receive a revised draft of the IAR and issued a second opinion on 8 April 2011 where 
it acknowledged improvements made along the lines of some of the comments made. It provided additional 
recommendations to: 

•  Provide greater details on how reformed market instruments would play a relevant role in reformed 

CFP 

•  Clarify  some  of  the  proposed  measures  in  particular  efficiency  of  new  intervention  instruments, 
implication  of  extending  mandatory  information  to  consumers  to  out-of-home  sector,  and 
governance conditions in trade instruments 

•  Strengthen the analysis of impact and comparison of options 

This  IA  report  further  develops  the  links  between  market  and  conservation  instruments  in  section  8, 
economic  impact  analysis  of  intervention  mechanism.  It  abandons  the  proposal  to  extend  mandatory 
information  to  consumers  to  out-of-home  sector  (take-away,  restaurant  and  catering)  and  clarifies  that 
governance conditions would only apply to imported products granted by preferential autonomous tariffs. 
Impact analysis in particular on the budget has been further developed in section 7.3. 

SECTION 2: POLICY CONTEXT 

2.1.  Common Market Organisation for fisheries and aquaculture products 

The  CMO  was  the  first  component  of  the  CFP  to  be  put  in  place  in  1970.  Like  market  organisations  in 
agricultural  products,  its  legal  basis  is  Article  38  of  the  Treaty.  The  CMO  was  created  to  achieve  the 
objectives  laid  down  in  Article  39  of  the  Treaty  in  the  fishery  sector,  in  particular,  to  provide  market 
stability, to ensure a stable supply of quality products, to guarantee fair income for producers and to ensure 
reasonable prices for consumers.  

The  current  CMO  is  more  specifically  designed  to  contribute  to  the  CFP’s  general  objective  of  seeking 
sustainable fisheries and to secure the future of the fishery sector. Its main goals are: (1) price stability; (2) 
optimal  balance  between  supply  and  demand;  (3)  strengthened  competitiveness;  (4)  ensure  the  supply  of 
the  EU  processing  industry  while  respecting  the  interest  of  EU  producers;  (5)  proper  information  to  the 
consumer.  

8

 
 
 
The CMO has five instruments: (1) producer organisations; (2) price support system based on intervention; 
(3) common marketing standards; (4) consumer information; (5) autonomous arrangements for trade with 
third countries.  

The regulatory framework through which the CMO is implemented includes 4 Council regulations and 23 
Commission regulations (See Annex 1). 
The CMO is financed by the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF)6 and the European Fisheries 
Fund (EFF) (Chapter 11.06) which supports the creation of POs, their restructuring and the implementation 
of  their  plans  to  improve  quality.  The  EFF  also  covers  measures  addressed  to  associations  of  operators 
including POs, such as promotion campaigns, quality policy and certification. 

2.2.  Presentation, performance of the CMO instruments and the views of the stakeholders  

The following charts present the policy tools of the current CMO and the main outcome of its evaluation, 
as well as the views of stakeholders. Detailed analyses are presented in Annexes 1, 2, 3 and 4.  

Organisation of the sector 

Description 
Producer  Organisations  (POs)  are  a  fundamental  feature 
of  the  CMO  since  they  constitute  the  interface  between 
catch/aquaculture activities and the market.  

They are set up voluntarily by fishermen or fish farmers to 
organise  and  stabilise  the  market  and  to  improve  the 
financial returns from their production   

In 2010, 238 POs (catch and aquaculture) were registered in 
17 EU countries and they represented some 60% of the fist 
sale value of EU production.  

implement 

following  measures: 

POs  may 
i) 
the 
management  of  intervention  mechanisms  ;  ii)  operational 
programmes  for  production  (catches  or  aquaculture)  and 
marketing  planning,  iii)  quality  improvement  plans  for 
products throughout all stages of production and marketing; 
(iv) 
(PO) 
extension  of  Producers’  Organisation’s 
production  and  marketing  rules  to  non-members  operating 
in the same area of activity.  

Financial assistance for the creation and the restructuration 
of  POs  is  available  under  the  EFF.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
EAGF  finances  compensation  for  the  preparation  and 
implementation of operational programmes. 

Evaluation 
The  analysis  of  the  operation  of  POs  and  IBOs  shows  the 
following aspects: 
►  The CMO has effectively supported the organisation of 
fishermen in POs. Nevertheless, the acceptance of POs 
has been lower for the aquaculture sector;  

►  The extension of rules, although complex to implement 
has  contributed  to  limit  the  waste  of  resources  and  to 
enhance the value of landings. 

►  The  financial  resources  granted  to  POs  by  the  EAGF 
and the EFF were modest and not always fully utilised 
by the MS.  

►  POs  lack  resources  to  organise  the  upstream  operators 
in  a  proper  manner  and  to  be  a  relevant  tool  for  the 
implementation of the CFP; 

►  The  effect  of  operational  programmes  on  matching 
supply  with  demand  was  limited.  They  remained  a 
theoretical  exercise  but  provided  some  educational 
value to POs in planning their activities;  

►  The  recognition  of  IBOs  has  been  used  very  seldom. 
This  may  be  due  to  the  complex  and  often  conflicting 
relations between producers and downstream operators, 
the  low  level  of  EU  supply  to  the  processing  industry 
and 
the  different  concentration  of  upstream  and 
downstream operators. 

Views of the stakeholders 

6  Budget line “11.02.01.01 (Interventions in fisheries products) currently with around  €15 million/year   

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Organisation of the sector 

Description 
Interbranch  Organisations  (IBOs)  gather  representatives 
of  different  branches  of  the  value  chain  to  take  closer 
account  of  market  realities  and  facilitate  commercial 
linkage.  Their  purpose  is  to  promote  partnership  measures 
of  shared  interest  for  the  entire  sector  market  surveys  and 
research,  development  of 
fisheries  products,  better 
adaptation of production to market requirements, etc.  

However,  IBOs  cannot  engage  themselves  in  production, 
processing or marketing activities.  

In 2007 there were 4 IBOs recognised in 3 MS: 2 in Spain 
(one in the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in France 
(aquaculture) and one in Italy (both catch and aquaculture). 

Interbranch  organisations  (IBOs)  do  not  have  access  to 
start-up  aids.  Most  of  IBOs'  activities  can  be  financed  by 
the  EFF  under  collective  actions,  development  of  new 
markets and promotional campaigns.  

Evaluation 
►  There  is  a  strong  consensus  on  the  key  role  that 
Producer  Organisations 
the 
implementation  of  both  the  Market  Policy  and  the 
reformed CFP. 
 They  are  considered  as  the  main  operators  for  the 
management  of  fishing  activities 
including  quota 
management. 

(POs)  can  play 

► 

in 

►  A  majority  of  stakeholders  regret  the  current  lack  of 
responsibilities  and  means  allocated  to  POs  (including 
adequate financial support).  

►  The establishment of transnational POs and aquaculture 
POs  is  regarded  effective  in  further  structuring  the 
sector,  enabling  cross  border  cooperation  and 
developing business strategies.  

►  The  mandate  and  management  capacity  of  POs  and 
IBOs  should  be  reinforced  in  order  to  increase  their 
role  in  implementing  and  controlling  conservation 
policy  at  local  level  and  in  better  linking  supply  to 
market demand. Aspects particularly well supported by 
producers were: rights and ability to manage production 
activities,  concentration  of  supply  by  EU  producers, 
innovation  and 
market  analysis,  marketing  plans, 
quality initiatives. 

10

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Producers Organisations by EU countries (1971-2011)  

Enlargment to 
Spain and 
Portugal

Reform of the 
CMO

EU-15

EU-25 EU-27

250

200

150

100

50

0

1975

1974

1973

1972

1982
1971
1976
Source: European Commission  

1977

1979

1980

1978

1981

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Belgium

Rom ania

Lithuania

Latvia

Greece

Estonia

Denm ark

Ireland

Poland

Sw eden

The Netherlands

Portugal

United Kingdom

Germ any

France

Italy

Spain

The  various  segments  of  production  are  well  represented  by  POs,  including  small  scale  and  coastal 
fisheries. In the aquaculture sector 30 POs were registered in 2010 mainly in the shellfish sector in SP, FR 
and the NL. 

Table 2: Producers Organisations representativeness by country and species 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BEL

GBR

PRT

FRA

DNK

ESP

NLD

FIN

DEU

SWE

LVA

LTU

Source:  Fishery  Data  Exchange  System  (Fides) 
and Eurostat 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0%

d
o
C

p
m

i
r
h
S

g
n
i
r
r
e
H

e
k
a
H

e
r
o
c
a
b
l
A

a
n
u
t

n
i
f

e
u
l
B

l
e
r
e
k
c
a

M

e
s
r
o
H

l
e
r
e
k
c
a

M

l
e
r
e
k
c
a
m
h
s
i
n
a
p
S

r
e
t
s
b
o
l

y
a
w
r
o
N

e
n
i
d
r
a
S

e
c
i
a
l

P

p
o
l
l
a
c
S

g
n
i
t
i
h
w
e
u
l
B

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Market interventions 

Description 
Intervention provides financial compensation to fishery POs, 
which manage the different mechanisms.  
The intervention mechanisms are triggered when the market 
prices  for  certain  fisheries  products  fall  below  a  given 
threshold, e.g. withdrawal price, selling price.  
These  prices  are  fixed  annually  by  the  Commission  on  the 
basis  of  the  guide  prices,  which  in  turn  are  determined 
annually by the Council for 31 fresh and 12 frozen products 
of EU importance.  
The  Council  also  fixes  the  Union  producer  price  for  tuna 
intended for processing. 

Evaluation 
The analysis of the implementation intervention mechanisms 
shows that: 

►  The  effects  of  withdrawals  and  carry-over  aid  on  the 
stability  of  the  market  are  weak  and  limited  to  a  few 
ports  and  fisheries  of  small  pelagic  species, 
in 
particular  sardines  in  Portugal  and  France;  herring  in 
Denmark  and  Ireland;  and  mackerel  in  Spain,  France 
and Ireland; 

►  On  average,  the  quantities  withdrawn  accounted  for 
less  than  2%  of  the  production  of  pelagic  species  and 
around 1% of the production of whitefish; 

When  market  prices  fall  and  intervention  mechanisms  are 
triggered, PO' members receive financial compensation.  
There  are  4  intervention  mechanisms  based  on  a  system  of 
prices fixed at EU level: 
●  Withdrawals:  Products  taken  permanently  off  the 
market  for  human  consumption,  whose  destination  is 
destruction,  animal  feed  (e.g.  fish  meals),  bait  or 
charity.  The  compensation  is  a  percentage  of  the 
withdrawal  price.  The  percentage  diminishes  as  the 
amount of withdrawn fish increases; 
Carry-over: Storage and/or processing of products to be 
reintroduced onto the market for human consumption at 
a  later  stage.  The  aid  is  related  to  the  amount  of 
technical  and 
financial  costs  of  storage  and/or 
processing; 
Private  storage:  Storage  of  products  frozen  on  board 
vessels intended for reintroduction onto the market for 
human consumption. The aid is related to the amount of 
technical and financial storage costs; 

● 

● 

●  Compensatory  allowance 

for 
processing:    Compensation  to  tuna  producers  for  the 
absence  of  tariff  protection  on  imports  for  the  tuna 
processing industry. 

intended 

tuna 

for 

On  the  other  hand,  independent  withdrawals  and  carry-over 
apply  to  18  species  for  which  there  are  substantial  price 
differences  in  a  single  national  market  or  between  the 
regions.  The 
fixed 
independently by the POs. 

intervention  prices  are 

relevant 

The implementation of intervention mechanisms involves the 
yearly adoption of: 
○ 

1  Council  Regulation  fixing  the  guide  prices  and 
Community producer prices;  
the  different 
6  Commission  Regulations 
intervention  parameters  and  the  reference  prices  for 
those products which benefit from tariff reductions.  

fixing 

○ 

The  EAGF 
intervention mechanisms.  

finances  compensation 

for 

the  different 

It should be noted that no intervention mechanism has ever 
been put in place for aquaculture products. 

►  The  compensatory  allowance 

for 

tuna  has 

lost 
relevance  due  to  the  reduction  of  EU  supply  to  the 
processing  industry  and  the  relocation  of  EU  tuna 
canneries  in  third  countries.  The  mechanism  is  also 
affected  by  it's  administrative  complexity  including 
long delays in payment; 

►  The distinction "EU – independent" mechanisms is not 
relevant since there is no real "single EU market" for a 
given  species  but  a  diversity  of  national,  regional  or 
local markets; 

►  The  current  EU  price  system  is  difficult  to  understand 
by  operators,  in  particular  the  guide  prices  calculation 
method.  Yet  operators  wish  to  maintain  the  price 
system  with  some  adaptations  as  a  "psychological 
reference" for the markets; 

►  The  guide  prices  and  intervention  system  have  mainly 
played the role of safety net by limiting intervention to 
exceptional circumstances; 

►  The  collection  and  centralisation  of  economic 
information through the FIDES notification system is 
a valuable reference for the markets. 
Views of the stakeholders 

► 

Intervention  is  generally  considered  to  have  little 
impact  on  price  stability  and  producers'  incomes.  This 
marginal  impact  is  mainly  due  to  the  low  amount  of 
public  funding  for  intervention  mechanisms  (less  than 
0,2% of production value).  

►  However,  the  different  components  of  the  price  and 
intervention  system  are 
judged  differently.  The 
relevance of a price system is widely recognised, even 
though  opinions  differ  on  the  relevance  and  impact  of 
withdrawals and carry-over.  

►  The  EU  price  system,  including  guide  prices,  is 
considered  by  most  stakeholders  as  a  common 
reference for the sector as a default minimum price.  
►  However,  the  EU  guide  price  system  does  not  reflect 
differences between different EU production areas and 
should be revised to reflect the" various market realities 
prevailing in the EU". 

►  A  majority  of  stakeholders  recognises  that  there  is 
limited  economic  information  to  respond  to  their 
expectations  and  needs.  However, 
stakeholders 
including MS are reluctant to new obligations or costs 
for  themselves  resulting  from  the  introduction  of  a 
Market  Intelligence  system.  Access 
to  economic 
information  also  raises  some  concerns  in  terms  of 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Market interventions 

Description 

confidentiality. 

Evaluation 

Autonomous tariff policy  

Description 
This regime aims to ensure stability of supplies in order to 
enhance the competitiveness of the EU processing industry 
while respecting the interests of the EU producer sector7.  

The  regime  is  therefore  limited  to  autonomous  tariff 
suspensions  and  tariff  quotas  for  certain  raw  materials 
intended  for  processing.  The  regime  works  as autonomous 
derogation  to  (lowering  of)  applicable  Most  Favoured 
Nation (MFN) tariffs at the EU border.  

The suspensions are established by 
•  Article  28  and  Annex  VI  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 

104/2000 

•  Council  Regulation 

introduces 
suspensions for certain industrial, agricultural and fishery 
products 

(EC)  No  1255/96 

The current quota regime is laid down in Council Regulation 
(EC) No  1062/2009. It applies to the period 2010 to 2012. 

The  level  and  coverage  of  autonomous  tariff  quotas  is 
adapted every 3 years to the current needs of the processing 
sector, Autonomous suspensions remain unchanged for the 
duration of the Regulation.  

The  granting  of  autonomous  tariff  suspensions  and  tariff 
quotas  is  subject  to  compliance  of  the  relevant  imported 
products  with  reference  prices.    These  prices  are  adopted 
annually by way of a Commission Regulation 

Evaluation 
The analysis of the autonomous tariff policy is as follows: 

►  The  Suspensions  and 

tariff  quotas  have  ensured 
competitive  supplies  to  certain  segments  of  the  EU 
processing 
their 
activities and jobs; 

industry,  which  could  maintain 

►  These  measures  have  not  significantly  affected  the 
balance and prices of the main EU markets for fisheries 
and  aquaculture  products,  hence  not  disrupting 
producers' interests 

►  Whilst  imports  are  recognised  as  necessary,  a  large 
majority  of  EU  stakeholders  emphasise  the  need  to 
establish  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  and  imported 
products. 

Views of the stakeholders 

The EU processing industry supports maintaining the current 
system  of  autonomous  tariff  suspension  and  tariff  quotas  in 
order  to  guarantee  a  steady  and  competitive  supply  of  raw 
materials to the EU processing industry.  
Suspensions  should  be  allowed  in  case  of  structural  supply 
shortages, while tariff quotas should be opened for products 
with  insufficient  EU  production,  bearing  in  mind  the 
legitimate interests of EU producers. 
The issue of seeking fair competition between EU production 
and  imports,  i.e.  "level  playing  field,"  has  been  extensively 
debated, including between EU institutions.  

Producers  strongly  believe  that  the  EU  should  ensure  that 
products  imported  into  the  EU  meet  the  same  requirements 
that  apply  to  EU  production  in  terms  of  environmental, 
social,  health  and  quality  standards.  Processors  want 
predictable,  regular  access  to  raw  material  at  the  cheapest 
price.  Retailers  want  cheap  products,  whatever  the  origin. 
the 
Reconciling 

these  conflicting 

is  one  of 

interests 

7 The current quota regime for the period 2010-2012 focuses on whitefish (cod, hake and substitute species), sensitive 
products (herring and tuna loins) and shrimps. In order to benefit from favourable tariff treatment, all quotas are to be 
used only for processing of fishery products.  

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Description 

Description 

Marketing standards 

Autonomous tariff policy  

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

objectives of a responsible Market Policy. 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  common  marketing  standards  apply  to  first  sale  of 
certain  fisheries  products  in  the  EU,  whatever  their  origin 
(EU and imported products)8.  

When standards are defined, products must comply in order 
to be marketed for human consumption within the EU.  

Marketing  standards  for  fresh/chilled  fisheries  products 
enable sorting products by freshness and size categories:  
•  Freshness  categories  are  adapted  to  the  main  groups  of 
species and determined by organoleptic characteristics;  

•  Size categories are usually set by weight. 

including 

A  sampling  system  is  in  place  to  facilitate  the  grading  of 
small pelagic species.  
There  are  also  standards  for  canned  tuna9,  sardines  and 
sardine-type  products10, 
trade  descriptions, 
market presentation and covering media.  
Marketing  standards  do  not  cover  aquaculture  products  or 
frozen products.  
The  purpose  of  these  standards  is  to  facilitate  the  internal 
market  by  defining  harmonised  commercial  characteristics 
of  products,  and 
to  enable  uniform  application  of 
intervention mechanisms allowing common prices for each 
product category to be established. 

The  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  common  marketing 
standards is as follows: 

►  Marketing 

information 
standards  and  consumer 
provisions  are  relevant  in  view  of  the  diversity  of  EU 
markets  as  they  have  established  a  set  of  "minimum 
common  rules."  They  have  also  provided  wide 
flexibility by allowing MS and operators to go beyond 
them  when  considered  relevant  and  necessary  for  the 
regulation of their specific markets; 

►  Marketing  standards  have  played  an  important  role  in 
measuring  the  quality  of  products  (freshness)  and 
facilitating marketing based on uniform standards; 
►  Minimum marketing sizes have played an indirect role 
in  preventing  the  marketing  of  juveniles.  Some  POs 
have  established  their  own  standards  or  have  raised 
regulatory thresholds in order to achieve better returns 
on the market.  

Views of the stakeholders 

inconsistencies  between 

the  current  set  of  marketing 
Stakeholders  consider 
standards  useful 
in  achieving  a  standardised  supply 
facilitating  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  these 
products. 
landing  and  minimum 
Some 
marketing  sizes  laid  down  in  CFP  and  CMO  regulations, 
have been highlighted and should be addressed. 
Future  standards  need  to  be  clear,  simple  to  follow,  flexible 
and allow industry to self-regulate. Further consistency with 
the conservation policy should be envisaged. 

8 The standards cover 47 species eligible for intervention mechanisms by freshness and size categories. Freshness is 
adapted to the main group of species (whitefish, bluefish, crustaceans…). Marketing sizes are generally expressed by 
weight without prejudice to the minimum biological sizes expressed by length. For those species bearing both sizes, 
the minimum biological sizes in force prevail over the minimum marketing sizes in all circumstances. There are also 
standards  for  canned  products  (sardines,  sardine-type  products,  tuna  and  bonito).  They  govern  trade  descriptions, 
market  presentations,  covering  media  and  additional  ingredients.  The  standards  for  canned  sardines  had  to  be 
amended in 2003 and 2008 to bring the trade descriptions for sardines and sardine-type products in conformity with 
the relevant international standard, i.e. the Codex Alimentarius Standard STAN94 and its 2007' revision. 

9   Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 of 9 June 1992 laying down common marketing standards for preserved 

tuna and bonito 

10Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2136/89  of  21  June  1989  laying  down  common  marketing  standards  for preserved 

sardines and trade descriptions for preserved sardines and sardine-type products 

15

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Information to consumers 

Description 
Consumer  information  provisions  in  the  current  CMO 
concern  fisheries  products  falling  within  Chapter  3  of  the 
Combined  Nomenclature  (i.e.  live,  fresh,  chilled,  frozen, 
smoked,  dried,  salted,  in  brine,  crustaceans  and  molluscs) 
offered  for  retail  sale  in  the  EU  (either  of  EU  origin  or 
imported).  

These  obligations  do  not  apply  to  canned  or  processed 
products.  

The following information must be indicated by packaging or 
labelling at retail sale:  
  ●  the  commercial  designation  of  the  species  established  in 
each Member State 
  ●  the  production  method  (caught  at  sea,  caught  in 
freshwater or farmed) 
  ●  the  catch  area  for  the  products  caught  at  sea  (based on 
the  FAO  fishing  areas)  or  a  reference  to  the  country  of 
origin for the products caught in freshwater or farmed 

Evaluation 
►  Consumer  information  provisions  are  relevant  insofar 
as 
they  provide  a  harmonised  minimum  set  of 
information relevant for the sector and consumers while 
leaving flexibility to add further information. However, 
the  system  can  be  improved  in  respect  of  information 
content and enforcement by MS. 

►  The  effect  of  the  provisions  was  affected  by  a  mixed 
application  depending  on  the  MS  as  well  as  the 
organisation and effectiveness of national controls. 

to  consumers 

Views of the stakeholders 
Industry and several MS consider that some provisions of the 
current legislation are useful and should remain (commercial 
name, production method: wild fish or aquaculture).  
Information 
is  considered  strategic  for 
stakeholders. More precise information on the provenance of 
products  and  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  regulation  to 
all  products  and  selling/consumption  places  has  been  called 
for. 
Regarding  voluntary  information  (such  as  ecolabelling) 
stakeholders recalled the roles of public authorities to ensure 
and  control  that  accurate  and  transparent  information  are 
provided  to  EU  consumers.  Considering  possible  confusion 
and fraud on product allegation it has been argue in favour of 
establishing an appropriate legal framework at EU level. 

2.3.  The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and interaction with the Market Policy 

The main objective of the reform of the CFP is to set a smarter and greener policy i.e. primarily focusing on 
sustainable exploitation of the resources in a much more simplified and decentralised way.  

The problem definition of the current CFP has outlined the poor situation of many EU stocks. Solving this 
problem  will  require  immediate  action  to  ensure  fishing  pressure  becomes  aligned  with  environmental 
sustainability.  This  is  translated  in  the  impact  assessment  for  the  reform  of  the  CFP  in  the  content  of 
different options which set out tools for achieving mortality levels compatible with Maximum Sustainable 
Yield  (MSY)  within  the  timeframe  of  the  reform.  Challenges  of  aquaculture  production  should  also  be 
addressed to reduce the impact on environment. 

The CFP impact assessment concluded that considering new objectives and instruments of the CFP a far 
reaching  reform  of  the  Market  Policy  was  necessary.  Market  oriented  instruments  should  contribute 
directly or indirectly to the achievement of some of the main CFP objectives. 

The following chart presents the main objectives of the reformed CFP as defined in its impact assessment 
for  the  possible  or  potential  contribution  of  an  EU  Market  Policy  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products. 
This will be further elaborated in the options section. 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CFP objectives 

Possible contribution of a reformed market policy 

Environmental sustainability 
•  To eliminate overfishing in the short 
term. 

•  To reduce overcapacity and discards 
as much as possible.  

To move away from production strategy based on volume:  
- Market measures leading to increased prices and added value of 
products  
- Market incentives and premium for sustainable practices: 
certification (ecolabels), promotion, information to consumers…;  
No direct contribution to reduce overcapacity  
Accompanying market measures necessary to ensure treatment of  
landings of discards   

•  To put in place a decision-making 
system consistent with long term 
sustainability, flexible and adaptable to 
local conditions 
•  To improve responsibility and 
compliance by the industry.  

•  To improve the availability of 
scientific advise and economic data 
Economic sustainability 

Increase the long-term resilience of 

• 
the sector. 

•  Reorient public financial support 
towards innovation, value added and 
marketing 
Social sustainability 

•  To increase the quality of 
employment (wages, safety and working 
conditions)  
•  To make it an attractive source of 
employment. 
•  To give alternative development 
options to coastal communities.  
A better governance 

Improve efficiency of public financial 

•  Simplify the CFP 
• 
support 
•  Foster regionalisation 
A  more  efficient  external  dimension  of 
the CFP 

Adapt intervention policy to local conditions 

Empowerment and co-management by producer organisations of 
access rights, production and marketing activities 
Facilitate partnerships for sustainable production, sourcing and 
consumption 

Extend and disseminate market and economic analysis 

Increase bargaining power of the production side (fisheries and 
aquaculture), improve anticipation, prevention and management of 
prices crisis  
Contribute to improve market transparency and efficiency in view of 
optimising production value 

Contribution mainly indirect on revenue: support added value of 
fisheries and aquaculture products and competitiveness of the 
processing industry 

Substantial reduction of legal framework and administrative burden  

Reorientation of financial support from fleet measures towards 
smart, green, innovative and market oriented measures 
Set intervention prices at decentralised level 

•  To improve international governance 

Support level playing field conditions of trade 

The  Market  Policy  is  also  complementary  to  the  recently  adopted  Regulation  to  fight  against  Illegal 
Unregulated and Unreported fishing and strengthen the implementation of the CFP and its control11. 

11   Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 
that impose a catch certificate for fishery products imported to the EU. Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 
17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.4.  Who is affected by the Market Policy and how? 

The  Market  Policy  reform  impacts  to  a  different  extent  all  stakeholders  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture 
sector from production to final consumption. The key issues for the various types of stakeholders are set 
out in Table 3. 

Table 3: Key issues for stakeholders 

Stakeholder 

Description 

Key interests 

Key instruments in  market policy 

Production  sector 
in the EU 

catches 

EU 
producers 

and 

aquaculture 

Dependent 
businesses (fish 
wholesaler)  

Obtaining 
some 
supplies 
primary processing, presentation and 
logistics services 

and 

Processing sector 

Third countries 

raw  materials  both 
Processing 
imported  (from  third  countries  and 
caught  by  EU  vessels  in  Fisheries 
Partnership 
and 
produced within EU waters 

Agreements) 

Exporters  to  the  EU  of  raw  or 
processed.  fisheries  and  aquaculture 
products  

Maintaining  activities  in  production 
and 
areas; 
improve  profitability 
strengthening 
competitiveness, 
sustainability 
and 
aquaculture products (FAPS). 

fisheries 

of 

Maintaining 
profitability: 
predictability  and  access  to  (mainly 
fresh) 
required 
volumes, range of species and quality 

raw  material 

in 

Organisation  of  the  sector:  POs  & 
IBOs,  interventions  on  the  market, 
marketing  standards,  information  to 
consumers, markets analysis, quality, 
promotion 

IBOs,  marketing  standards,  market 
analysis, 
promotion; 
quality, 
information to consumers 

profitability 

and 
Maintaining 
competitiveness;  predictability  and 
access to raw material. 

IBO,  preferential  trade  instruments, 
marketing  standards,  information  to 
consumers,  market  analysis,  quality, 
promotion 

Supplying the growing and profitable 
largest).  Economic 
EU 
(world’s 
and 
development, 
contribution 
fishery 
governance.  Compliance  with  health 
rules 

exports 
global 

to 

Predictability of sourcing, stability of 
prices and quality, labelling 

Retailers 
restaurants 

and 

Consumers 

NGOs  and 
public 

the 

sellers: 

Final 
fishmongers, 
collective restaurants 

supermarkets, 
and 

commercial 

Final buyers in stores or restaurants   Availability, 

quality, 
cost 
information  and  labelling  (what  am  I 
buying?). 

and 

advocating 

of 
development 

sustainable 
NGOs 
fisheries  & 
management 
of 
sustainable 
aquaculture. 
Consumers’ 
organisations  want  food  security 
with  good  quality  fish  at  reasonable 
price.  

The  wider  public  has  an  interest  in 
and  concern  for  sustainability  of 
fishing  and  farming  activities  fishing 
and 
environment. 
Increasingly  interested  in  nutritional 
quality of fish (essential fatty acids).  

the  marine 

standards, 
marketing 
IBO, 
preferential 
instruments, 
trade 
information  to  consumers,  market 
analysis 

Interbranch  organisations,  marketing 
standards, information to consumers, 
markets analysis, quality, promotion 

Information  to  consumers,  market 
analysis, quality, promotion 

marketing 

standards, 
IBOs, 
information  to  consumers,  market 
analysis, quality, promotion 

2.5.  EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products 

It  is  appropriate  to  analyse  how  the  EU  market  has  evolved  in  the  last  decade,  as  well  as  how  it  may 
develop in the coming years in terms of supply and demand. This is particularly so given that more than ten 
years have elapsed since the last reform of the EU Market Policy12 (see Annex 6). 

The  EU  is  the  first  market  in  the  world  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  in  value  (55  billion  euros 

of  20  November  2009  establishing  a  Community  control  system  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  rules  of  the 
CFP 

12 

Study 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm  

and  marketing 

fisheries 

supply 

aquaculture 

and 

on 

of 

products 

in 

the  EU: 

18

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                
representing 12 millions tons). The demand for fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU is influenced 
by a combination of various factors: economic (price and purchasing power), health and nutritional values, 
quality in the broadest sense (organoleptic features, freshness and safety guarantees) and increased interests 
for environmental impact and product provenance. The trends may be summarised as follows: 

(cid:190)  EU deficit in fisheries and aquaculture products increases: EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57% to 

35%. 

(cid:190)  Retail concentration increased and accounts between 55% and 85% of fish sales in EU MS. 

(cid:190)  Features of changes in fish consumption in the EU  

o  Consumption growth in most of EU countries13 with a strong increase for salmon and tropical 
prawns  and  new  species14;  at  the  same  time  there  has  been  a  decreased  demand  for  some 
traditional products (e.g. herring, plaice). Strong growth in the out-of-home catering sector. 
o  Fresh fish continues to dominate in the majority of MS15 but changes are observed in qualitative 
and economic expectations of consumers (more fish fillets and less whole fish, ready to eat and 
processed food, new consumers for new products without strong fishy taste and smell and at a 
low price). Innovations in terms of presentation and packaging. 

2.6.  Cross cutting issues  

Fish is a natural renewable resource, an internationally traded commodity and a food product. It is therefore 
affected by: 

(cid:190)  Environmental  Policy  and  in  particular  Sustainable  Production  and  Consumption  policy,  EU 

Ecolabel16 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive17 

(cid:190)  Agricultural Policy, in particular reforms of the agriculture CMO, especially for fruit and vegetables 
which  share  common  features  and  challenges  (see  Annex  5),  Regulation  on  agricultural  product 
quality schemes, (draft regulation to adopted18),  organic farming rules for aquaculture products19. 

(cid:190)  Research Policy in particular in support of innovation and research in aquaculture production and in 

post-harvest areas of fisheries  

(cid:190)  Health, safety and consumers’ Policy: food safety, labelling, nutrition and health claims, Regulation 

13 Consumption in the EU increased by nearly two million tonnes between 1999 and 2007. This trend is particularly 
strong in traditional markets such as France where an increase of 5kg/year/inhabitant has occurred in the last ten 
years. Likewise in several Central and Eastern European MS, there has been a noticeable increase in the level of 
consumption.  Growth  in  EU  consumption  is  expected  to  continue  at  some  +0.5%  per  year  between  now  and 
2030, representing some additional 1,500,000 tonnes by 2030.  

14 EU markets are open to the arrival of new fish species, many of them substituting traditional species which have 
become  scarce.  Examples  of  this  are  Alaska  Pollock  in  the  80s,  Nile  perch  from  Lake  Victoria  in  the  90s, 
Pangasius from Vietnam since the mid 2000s. 

15  In  particular  in  Southern  European  countries  (Spain,  France  and  Italy)  where  more  than  50%  of  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  products  are  consumed  in  this  form.  Increase  consumption  of  fresh  fish  in  Eastern  European 
countries is registered. 

16 Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel 

17 Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy 

18 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0733:FIN:en:PDF 

19 detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and seaweed production were adopted in August 2009 (Commission 
Regulation 710/2009) 

19

 
 
 
                                                 
on information to consumers on food products  

(cid:190)  Trade Policy: WTO discussions on tariff and subsidies, bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements 
(including trade and sustainable development, tariff liberalisation, preferential rules of origin…).  

(cid:190)  EU  Development  Policy  in  view  of  ensuring  coherence  between  EU  policies  and  development 

objectives as referred to in article 208 of the TFUE. 

In  addition  the  Market  Policy  for  FAPs  should  be  fully  compatible  with  the  aim  of  the  “EU  2020 
objectives” 20  

SECTION 3  PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION  

The main problems with the current policy have been assessed and are summarised under five headings in 
Table 4 and subsequently discussed in detail in this section.  

Table 4: The five main problem areas of the current CMO and their underlying drivers 

Problems 

Underlying drivers 

Limited  contribution  of  the 
EU  Market  Policy 
to 
sustainability of production 

 ►  Many EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way 
 ►  Limited market incentives to exploit the resources  in a sustainable fashion  
 ►  Wrong policy signals (support to withdrawals, weakness of POs) 

Deterioration 
position of EU production  

of  market 

 ►  Limited or decreased EU production opportunities (fisheries and aquaculture) 
 ►  Fragmentation of the fishery and aquaculture production side and strong 
concentration of demand 
 ► Lack of competitiveness of EU operators in an increasingly globalised market

Inability  to  anticipate  and 
manage market fluctuations  

 ►  Lack of predictability of the EU supply in volume and quality 
 ►  Lack of anticipation of market demand by EU fishery and aquaculture 
producers  
 ►  High volatility of first sale prices  

Under 
potential 

exploited  market 

 ►  Marketing standards outdated and too rigid (business to business) 
 ►  Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices:  

Complex 
framework  and 
burdensome implementation 

 ►  Complex legal architecture and inconsistency of instruments 
 ►  Burdensome management 

3.1.  Limited contribution of the EU Market Policy to sustainability of production  

3.1.1.  Numerous EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way 

European fish stocks have been overfished for decades and the fishing fleets remain too large for available 
resources. 88% of Community stocks were fished beyond MSY in 2009: this means that these stocks could 
increase  and  generate  more  economic  output  if  they  were  left  for  only  a  few  years  under  less  fishing 
pressure21 . The outcome has been a continuous decrease in the amounts of seafood fished from Europe’s 

20 A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and 
innovation,  promoting  a  more  resource  efficient,  greener  and  more  competitive  economy,  fostering  a  high-
employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion.  

21 30 % of these stocks are outside safe biological limits, which means that they may not be able to replenish ; See the 

IAR on the Reform of the CFP. 

20

 
 
 
 
                                                 
waters. Consumers, processing and retail sectors increasingly share these concerns and require guarantees 
that the fish they consume and sell originates from well-managed and sustainable fisheries.22 

3.1.2.  Limited market incentives 

Until  the  late  1990s,  there  were  very  limited  market  premiums  for  sustainable  practices  or  no  market 
sanctions  for  potential  or  real  unsustainable  practices.  Environmental  sustainability  was  not  particularly 
well  supported  by  market  players  i.e.  purchasers  and  consumers.  Since  then,  there  has  been  a  growing 
interest  in  calling  for  increased  sustainability  of  fisheries  and  in  the  development  of  eco-labels. 
Commitments  of  processors  and  retailers  to  sustainable  sourcing  and  sustainable  fishing  labelling 
progressively increased in the last decade. Since 2008, large retailing companies in the USA and in the EU 
started publicly setting targets for sustainable sourcing23. Certified and labelled sustainable products have 
registered significant market penetration in the EU. Organic certified aquaculture production is also a very 
recent development24. The increased awareness of sustainability issues of marine resources has lead to the 
deterioration of the image of the sector. 

3.1.3.  Wrong policy signals 

Producer  Organisations  have  been  granted  responsibility  to  manage  market  interventions.  However, 
withdrawal  mechanisms  leading  to  destruction  of  fish  products,  even  of  limited  level  and  decreasing 
intensity, cannot be politically and economically justified in the context of scarcity and fragility of the EU 
resources and growing demand on the EU market. 
The effectiveness of the CMO was conditioned by internal and external inconsistencies, due to the diversity 
of instruments (i.e. conservation and market instruments, 2 financial instruments) and  lack of incentives to 
foster sustainable fishing. 

3.2.   Deterioration of market position of EU production  

3.2.1.  Limited or decreased EU production opportunities (fisheries and aquaculture)  

The CFP, which was reformed in 2002, and the various management instruments (quota, efforts, technical 
measures etc.) did not prevent the continuous deterioration of fishing stocks in EU waters. Consequently, 
fishing opportunities defined in terms of total allowable catches have continuously decreased for most of 
species  targeted  in  EU  waters.  In  this  context  overcapacity  has  continued  to  be  a  burden  on  profitability 
(high fixed costs) and a risk for additional pressure on stocks. The CMO did not contribute to providing 
market opportunities and stability for EU production so as to get more value from stagnating or decreasing 
volume of production, while encouraging good practices.  

EU fisheries production has registered a steady decrease in the last decade (- 2 million Metric Tons -MT). 
Over  a  million  MT  of  this  is  linked  to  the  reduction  in  Danish  industrial  fishing,  essentially  for  non-
human use. As regards catches for human consumption, demersal fish landings have fallen more sharply 
(-36%) than those of pelagic fish (-21%). EU aquaculture production25, has not made up for the reduction 
in  catch.  Its  production  stabilised  overall  between  1996  and  2008.  Freshwater  aquaculture  (-10%) 

22 Green paper: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy - COM(2009)163 final 

23 Commitments of large processing, catering and retails companies in particular in UK, Germany, France, USA … to 

increase their sourcing with sustainably certified products  

24 Detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and seaweed production were adopted in August 2009 (Commission 

Regulation 710/2009) 

25 With a production of 1.3 million tonnes in 2006. 

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
declined,  while  saltwater  aquaculture  increased  significantly  (+13%  between  1996  and  2008)26  mainly 
due to expansion of seabass and sea bream farming in the Mediterranean. 

3.2.2.  Fragmentation of the production side and strong concentration of demand 

Fundamental drivers of fragmentation of the production side are linked to the variety and complexity of the 
sector.  EU  producers  catch  or  farm  over  500  different  species  (fish,  molluscs  and  crustaceans),  each  of 
them  or  a  group  of  them  having  some  specific  features  in  terms  of  availability,  seasonality,  production 
modes both for fishing (metiers; gear, fishing patterns) and farming. This fish is brought ashore at a large 
number of landing sites (around 1000 for IT and FR alone). Likewise fish gets sold at a large number of 
sales sites (some 400 auctions) and via different modes (direct sales, contract with processors, restaurant, 
wholesalers, etc.).  

Production volume register wide variations depending of the species: the first ten species represent some 
50% of total EU production. In DE and NL, some 90% of landings are made up of 10 species, there is a 
greater range in FR and IT where the comparative figure is 50% to 60 % made up by the top ten. This also 
means that a large number of species are mainly limited to local markets. 

Such diversity and complexity limit selling capacities and bargaining power vis à vis purchasers’ demand. 
In general terms compared with agriculture production, with its much more concentrated species base for 
livestock, but more diverse fruit and vegetable production, little has been achieved to foster and structure 
producer cooperatives or collective actions to market fisheries and aquaculture products. Unlike fruit and 
vegetable  POs,  fishery  and  aquaculture  POs  have  not  fully  succeeded  in  grouping  supply.  This  appears 
particularly important when considering the structural concentration of retail. Supermarkets have a majority 
share of fisheries and aquaculture product retail distribution that continues to grow in all major EU markets 
(55%  in  SP,  70%  in  IT,  80%  in  FR,  DE  and  UK).  Nowadays,  this  growth  essentially  comes  from 
distribution  of  fresh  products,  given  that  supermarkets  already  totally  dominate  frozen  and  canned 
segments.  The  progressive  change  towards  large  retail  networks  has  led  to  concentrate  the  offer  to  EU 
consumers on a few high range products (salmon, cod and an increased share of aquaculture products (sea 
bass, sea bream)27. In 2008, the first ten species concentrated 60% of consumption in the EU (live weight 
equivalent)28. The remaining part is very much linked to national and regional availability and consumption 
habits.  The  diversity  described  makes  it  difficult  to  encompass  all  the  different  aspects  comprehensively 
within a one single EU policy. 

3.2.3.  Lack of competitiveness of EU operators in an increasingly globalised market29 

EU producers have not been able to provide the growing EU market with adequate volume of products. As 
a consequence EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57% to 35% between 1996 and 2006. The EU market is 
now supplied from 25% from EU fisheries production; 10% from EU aquaculture and 65% from imports. 
With  the  EU  demand  continuing  to  steadily  increase,  imports  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  are 
broadly recognised as essential to satisfy the needs of the EU market. The trend is for the growing amount 
of imports to be concentrated on species for which there is a deficit at EU level and in particular for white 
fish (cod, hake and haddock) whose deficit reaches 90%. In addition, to the reduction in availability in EU 
fisheries,  the  evolution  of  demand  in  the  EU  although  globally  increasing,  has  lead  to  a  reduction  of 
consumption of some traditional species such as herring (consumption decreased by nearly half per capita 

26 Aquaculture production in the EU is dominated by the 3 large Mediterranean countries (Spain, France and Italy) 
and the United Kingdom, which between them account for two thirds of EU production. During the past few years 
alone, production of new marine finfish species has increased by 60% for turbot, 37% for sea bass and 24% for sea 
bream. 

27 Half of UK consumption is concentrated on three species: salmon, cod and tuna against 25% in the EU. 

28 Study of Ikmes for Ofimer (now FranceAgriMer): formation des prix sur les produits aquatiques  

29  The  proportion  of  world  fishery  production  traded  internationally  (live-weight  equivalent)  was  an  estimated  37 

percent in 2009 representing above US$100 billion. (FAO Sub Committee on fish trade 2010) 

22

 
 
 
                                                 
in DE and POL) and plaice. Examples of recovered EU fisheries show that the additional supplies do not 
automatically lead to recover its original market. Once market share is lost, even in a positive context of 
growing demand, re-entering the market is neither automatic nor straightforward and a specific marketing 
strategy is required.  

Table 5: Case study:  the reintroduction of the Bay of Biscay anchovy 

The Bay of Biscay anchovy fishery was closed for during five years (2005-2010) due to risk of collapse. This has 
deprived Spanish and French fishermen from a particularly lucrative traditional market (around 2.5 € / kg at first 
sale  and  15  and  20  €  /  kg  in  Madrid  and  Barcelona  markets).  The  first  catches  following  the  reopening  in  2009 
brought  small  fish  (30-40  fish  per  kg.)  of  little  commercial  interest,  sold  at  a  price  which  was  just  above  the 
withdrawal price.  For the full year 2010 the mean price for the overall catch was around 20 to 25% below the price 
which was available before the closure.  

Average price at first sale for Anchovy  (Engraulis encrasicolus) 

Closure of the Bay of Biscaye anchovy 

e
n
n
o
t

/

o
r
u
E

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Average price

Guide price

The  problem  is  more  market  oriented    now  one  than  about  resources.  Buyers  for  processing  and  for  the  fresh 
market  had  switched  to  new  sources  of  supply  from  third  countries  of  good  quality  for  an  attractive  price 
(Morocco,  Argentina,  Chile  and  Peru)  which  were  all  offering  mature  anchovies.  The  Spanish  and  French  POs, 
though previously on opposite sides in the conflict over this resource got together and started to work on two key 
issues:  fishing less and larger fish which the market preferred and medium term business strategy via a label to 
allow the Bay of Biscay anchovies to be differentiated.

The market liberalisation for fisheries and aquaculture products is particularly advanced by means of the 
EU  Trade  Policy.  If  the  tariff  liberalisation  has  contributed  to  ease  supply  to  the  EU  market,  it  has 
contributed  to  the  deterioration  of  market  conditions  for  some  products  of  interest  for  EU  producers 
("substitution  effect":  imported  new  and  cheaper  species  becoming  proxy  for  look  alike  traditional  and 
more expensive species, impact on first sale prices and revenues).  

Competitiveness  is  also  very  affected    by  other  important  regulatory  and  socio-economic  factors  (labour 
cost,  cost  of  compliance  with  conservation,  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  measures,  health  and 
safety regulations, etc.) on which the CMO has little or no influence. The CMO impact on competitiveness 
has  been  mixed  and  limited  to  upstream  stages  of  the  value  chain.  On  the  contrary  autonomous  trade 
arrangements  with  third  countries  appear  to  have  had  direct  effects  on  competitiveness,  but  only  for  the 
processing industry. 

3.3.  Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations  

3.3.1.  Lack of predictability of the EU supply  

Fishing, more than other food production sector, is characterised by uncertainty with regard to production 
conditions (weather hazards, seasonality) and access (changes in quotas linked to stocks conditions) which 
give  rise  to  big  fluctuations  in  supply.  Aquaculture,  on  the  other  hand  is  generally  able  to  supply  the 
product demanded on a regular basis. 

Producer  involvement  in  production  and  marketing  planning  according  to  market  demand  has  remained 
weak in the capture sector. To date, tasks carried out by POs have been limited to planning and regulation 
of  fishing  activities  (sometimes  dealing  with  quota  management)  rather  than  marketing  activities.  It  has 
23

 
 
 
 
 
 
often been observed that the fisheries sector, and to a lesser extent the aquaculture sector "do not sell their 
products, but that people buy them." Potential buyers have no or late information on volumes available or 
place of landings. This leads to multiplicity of intermediary operators in charge of grouping landings and 
providing an adequate range of species. 

Table 6: Case study: management of cod supply 

In  2009,  following  the  implementation  of  a  recovery  plan  for  cod,  quotas  for  cod  were  reduced  for  French  POs.  This 
situation  resulted  in  a  "race  for  quotas"  among  French  fishermen.  In  order  to  be  sure  to  have  their  share  of  cod  quotas, 
fishermen targeted cod as from January and landed 15% more cod during the first quarter in 2009 than in 2008. As in the 
meantime cod landings were abundant in Norway and Iceland and cheap imports of fresh cod from these countries were 
available on the EU market, price for cod at first sale dropped by 25%. Moreover, French quotas were rapidly exhausted 
and fishermen were not able to deliver much cod as from April, whilst demand for cod increased during that period of the 
year.  In  2010,  POs  decided  to  limit  cod  landings  during  the  beginning  of  the  year,  which  led  to  better  first  sale  prices, 
similar to 2008 and kept more quotas for the rest of the year.  

tonnes
800

700

600

500

400
300

200

100

0
Jan

Feb

Apr

Mar
2008

Jan

Feb

Mar
2009

Apr

Jan

Feb

Apr

Mar
2010

€/kg
4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0

Volumes

price

First sale price and volumes of cod at French auctions (source FranceAgrimer).

3.3.2.  Lack of anticipation of market demand by EU fishery and aquaculture producers  

The fisheries and aquaculture sector is characterised by difficulties for producers stakeholders to anticipate, 
prevent and manage crises and market fluctuations mainly due to lack of market knowledge. Despite a very 
dynamic  intra-EU  trade  in  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  and  high  level  of  imports,  information  on 
market developments (demand, third countries competitors …) is not available to most producers limiting 
therefore their ability to adapt catch plans.  

Still there are some structural trends in the EU markets that can be anticipated. Clear differences in price 
elasticity of demand exist between species and markets. Price elasticity is strong for those species which 
have a good image and which are traditional favourites (such as monkfish, cod, scallops etc.). On the other 
hand, price elasticity is low for other staple species which are purchased by “traditional consumers”, these 
include fresh, smaller and more fragile products. 

Coordination  within  the  sector  is  limited.  The  possible  support  of  the  current  CMO  to  Interbranch 
Organisations (IBOs) has been very seldom used. IBOs are made of representatives of production (fisheries 
or aquaculture), trade and processing. In 2007 four IBOs were recognised in three MS: two in SP (one in 
the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in FR (aquaculture) and one in IT (both catch and aquaculture). 
This  may  be  due  to  the  complex  and  often  conflicting  relations  between  producers  and  downstream 
operators, the low level of EU supply to the processing industry and the different concentration of upstream 
and downstream operators. Better organisation of production appears to be a pre requisite for functioning 
Interbranch  coordination.  Such  developments  are  being  observed  in  some  MS:  in  Spain    and  France  in 
March 2010. 

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Case studies Nephrops: meeting the demand 

There  is  strong  seasonality  in  nephrops  demand  which  is  peaking  in  July/August  and  for  Christmas.  Nevertheless, 
nephrops  landings  in  France  are  traditionally  the  most  abundant  in  May/June,  which  has  a  depressing  impact  on 
prices. The inadequacy between landings and demand is so important that part of the landings have to be withdrawn 
every  year  during  several  weeks,  which  is  both  very  costly  for  POs  and  not  positive  in  terms  of  resource 
management. Traditional annual catch plans between various species and métiers prevent so far optimising value of 
nephrops landings over the year. 

Weekly variations of quantities, average price and 
Weekly variations of quantities, average price and 
Weekly variations of quantities, average price and 
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007
withrawals for live nephrops at French auctions in 2007

€/kg
€/kg

35,00
35,00

30,00
30,00

25,00
25,00

20,00
20,00

15,00
15,00

10,00
10,00

5,00
5,00

0,00
0,00

W ithdrawal price
Withdrawal price

tonnes
tonnes

18 0
18 0

16 0
16 0

14 0
14 0
14 0

12 0
12 0
12 0

10 0
10 0
10 0

80
80
80

60
60
60

40
40
40

20
20
20

0
0
0

Volume landed
Volume landed

W ithdrawals
W ithdrawals

Average price
Average price

Source : FranceAgrimer

3.3.3.  High volatility of first sale prices  

First  sale  prices  of  fresh  fish  are  generally  characterised  by  significant  volatility  linked  to  the  inherent 
fluctuations  in  landings  and  the  general  low  level  of  contracting  in  the  sector  i.e.  agreeing  on  price, 
volumes and quality in advance. The daily pricing system of auctions facilitates the sale of a wide variety 
of  products  from  numerous  different  species  but  with  limited  volumes.  Producers  often  have  limited 
advance knowledge of possible sale prices and therefore do not adapt their production strategies (species 
targeted, volume and timing and place of landing etc.). 

Prices of imported products appear to be much more stable compare to EU production, notably since they 
are  mainly  linked  to  major  frozen  commodities  coming  from  aquaculture  or  major  fisheries.  Important 
seasonal  prices  variations  also  characterise  catches  of  some  of  the  large  commodities  such  as  tuna  and 
salmon. 

25

 
 
 
 
Table 8: Case study: Evolution of North Sea Saithe price at first sale 

Saithe is one of the major species landed in the EU for human consumption. Despite an overall stability between 
2006 and 2008, first sale price of Saithe registered large fluctuations on a weekly basis. The average price over the 
period was around 1.00 €/kg, with sudden drops to 0.50 €/kg and sudden increase above 1.50 €/kg and even once 
to 2.70 €/kg. On a monthly basis, the price is much less volatile. (source: FranceAgrimer; Hanstholm auction- DK) 

€/kg

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

Denmark

France

2006

2007

2008

As for policy drivers, overall, the market intervention policy overall  had little impact on first sale prices. 
The  effect  of  intervention  on  price  stability  in  the  last  decade  has  been  restricted  to  a  safety  net  which 
avoids excessive price fluctuations in some local markets (in particular for pelagic species). Interventions 
on the market do not prevent volatile prices but may only correct sudden price falls. In addition, since EU 
enlargement to 27 MS, EU guide prices for certain species have been above first sale prices. This requires 
PO intervention for all quantities landed of such a species in some new MS. On the other hand, in MS with 
higher average prices, market intervention is impossible, including in the case of a real market crash. Local 
or  regional  realities  are  therefore  not  reflected  in  the  current  system.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  market 
interventions  policy  in  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector  has  been  historically  very  limited  in  terms  of 
budget allocated and is the most modest in relation to other agricultural CMO's. 

Table 9: EAGF spending and production value 2005 for CMO of agricultural and fisheries products  

Products 

Fishing and aquaculture 
Hops 

Seeds 

Pigs, eggs and poultry 

Rice 

Textile plants 

Wine 

Sugar (beet) 

Fruit and vegetables 

Sheep and goat meat 

Olive oil 

Milk 

Cattle 

Cereals 

Sources: EAGF and Eurostat 

Expenses 
millions of euros 

EAGF

Production 
millions of euros 

value 

% 
FEOGA 
production value 

/ 

           13  
           13  

          109  

          124  

          436  

          972  

        1 267  

        1 793  

        1 748  

        1 837  

        2 311  

        2 755  

        8 176  

        17 812  

             8 000  
              243  

              932  

            49 444  

              522  

             1 265  

            14 870  

             5 875  

            67 101  

             5 394  

             5 237  

            43 500  

            25 156  

            28 063  

0,2% 
5,3% 

11,7% 

0,3% 

83,5% 

76,8% 

8,5% 

30,5% 

2,6% 

34,1% 

44,1% 

6,3% 

32,5% 

63,5% 

26

 
 
 
 
 
3.4.  Under exploited market potential in the EU 

3.4.1.  EU marketing standards partially outdated  

In terms of policy drivers, neither the common marketing standards nor the quality improvement plans had 
direct  effects  on  product  quality,  the  latter  being  limited  to  the  submission  of  only  four  plans.  The 
marketing standards however played an important role in the grading of freshness according to harmonised 
quality standards. Overall, quality has improved over the last decade but this has mainly been due to other 
factors  such  as  market  requirements,  modernisation  of  the  fleet,  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries 
Guidance (FIFG) investments, and private initiatives. Some inconsistencies between landing and marketing 
minimum sizes defined in the CFP and the CMO have also been identified. 

Distance  selling  and  e-commerce  are  currently  constrained  by  difficulties  in  obtaining  homogenous  and 
precise information on products characteristics. 

3.4.2.  Difficulties for EU consumers to make informed choices 

The  consumer  information  provisions  in  the  CMO  provide  a  harmonised  minimum  set  of  compulsory 
information30, while leaving flexibility to add further information. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the 
provisions  was  affected  by  a  mixed  application  depending  on  type  of  product  and  MS  (insufficient 
controls  in  certain  MS and a number of infringements). Knowledge about fisheries products progressed 
overall but the effect of the legislation was indirect and relatively marginal. External factor played a more 
important  role,  i.e.  information  campaigns,  communication  by  NGOs  or  professional  organisations, 
marketing information. 
Existing  mandatory  information  is  characterised  by  limited  scope  and  is  very  broad.  There  is  large 
consensus that information on provenance defined by FAO area (eg North East Atlantic, Mediterranean 
Sea) is much too broad to provide useful information. In addition a large part of products consumed in the 
EU  are  exempted  from  these  labelling  obligations  in  particular  canned  and  processed  products  (chapter 
1604 and 1605 of the combined nomenclature), fisheries and aquaculture products sold in restaurants and 
catering. 

In addition, enquiries and information from MS and NGOs demonstrated that application of the existing 
regulation  has  not  prevented  consumers  being  misled  as  regards  the  species  offered  for  sale,  its 
provenance  or  its  sustainability.  There  have  been  calls  for  action  from  the  Commission  in  the  area  of 
environmental claims. 

EU  consumers  are  more  and  more  aware  as  a  result  of  extensive  media  coverage  (according  to  some 
estimations second only to the topic of climate change) of the challenges that marine resources are facing 
and they want to have more information as shoppers. Is this fish fresh or defrosted? Where exactly was it 
caught? Was it fished or produced sustainably or traded fairly? Despite this, the industry lacks collective 
or  common  actions  to  communicate  the  information  they  increasingly  expect  to  receive  to  make  more 
informed choices. 

Some  recent  voluntary  developments  are  being  observed  (more  precise  information  on  provenance, 
ecolabels31  etc.).  Still,  compared  with  other  food  products  differentiation  strategies  and  merchandising  is 
very  limited.  Quality  marks  such  as  Protected  Designation  of  Origin  (PDO),  Protected  Geographical 
Indication (PGI), or other such as Label Rouge are only of marginal interest to the sector judging by uptake 

30  Commercial  name,  production  method  (catch  or  aquaculture),  provenance  (FAO  catch  area  or  country  of 
production  for  aquaculture  products.  Some  marketing  standards  for  canned  products  (tuna  and  bonito)  provide 
guidance for labelling of these products. 

31  For  instance,  the  Marine  Stewardship  Council  (MSC)  certification,  have  registered  a  steady  increase,  driven  by 
Northern  European  countries  so  far,  and  large  retail  chains.  Over  6%  of  fishery  products  sold  in  the  EU  are 
certified in a sustainable fishing programme. 

27

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
and branding except for some processed products. Regional quality labels and brands are being developed 
in some countries (SP, FR). However, these quality labels have little recognition outside their countries. 

3.5.  Complex framework and burdensome implementation 

3.5.1.  Complex legal architecture 

Within  the  CFP,  the  legal  framework  of  the  current  CMO  includes  4  Council  Regulations,  and  23 
implementing Commission Regulations (see Annex 1). Moreover, the yearly running of the CMO requires 
the adoption of a Council Regulation fixing guide prices with six concomitant Commission Regulations. 

3.5.2.  Multiplicity and inconsistency of instruments 

Minimum  landing  sizes  (expressed  in  length)  are  defined  in  the  conservation  policy  and  in  the  CMO 
minimum  marketing  sizes  (expressed  in  weight)  are  defined  by  CMO.  They  are  not  always  consistent 
which leads to implementation and control difficulties. Financial support to withdrawal is not compatible 
with a conservation policy. 

Financial  support  to  marketing  (promotion,  quality,  less  popular  species,  etc.)  are  eligible  to  EFF  and 
therefore  decided  by  MS  within  their  operational  programme.  However,  there  is  no  link  with  CMO 
instruments focused on improving marketing of their products by POs. 

The  Market  Policy  uses  two  different  financial  instruments:  the  EAGF  and  the  EFF  with  two  different 
financial  management  instruments  (central  direct  management  for  EAFG  and  shared  management  for 
EFF)  (see  Annex  1).  The  duplication  of  financial  instruments  supporting  market  measures  makes  it 
difficult for POs to find a swift and efficient way to fund their activities (intervention and planning). In 
addition,  although  some  initiatives  for  marketing  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  are  relevant  at 
transnational level (same species, consumption areas…) existing EU instruments do not make it possible 
to support them.  

3.5.3.  Burdensome management 

The  complexity  of  the  legal  framework  involves  some  difficulties  in  its  day-to-day  implementation.  A 
significant  administrative  burden  for  POs  and  public  authorities  result  to  the  numerous  notification 
requirements due to the different current intervention mechanisms.  

The  double  funding  of  the  Market  Policy  (EAGF  and  EFF)  with  different  administrative  procedures, 
entail an additional burden to administrations and beneficiaries of the aids. 

3.6.  The right for the EU to act  

According to Article 3 (1d) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European 
Union has exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP. Article 
4 (2d) TFEU stipulates that the EU has shared competences for the other components of the CFP. These 
provisions determine the scope of action as regards what needs to be addressed at the level of the EU and 
what  room  remains  for  MS  to  act.  They  also  affect  the  form  of  the  EU  action,  in  terms  of  choice  of 
instrument. Market measures under the CMO fall within the scope of Article 4(2d) TFEU, and therefore it 
is necessary to justify the measures with regard to the subsidiarity principle. 

The establishment of a Market Policy at EU level is essential to achieve the internal market in fisheries and 
aquaculture products and to ensure fair competition. The respect of the subsidiarity principle requires that 
MS  and  economic  operators  should  enjoy  a  high  degree  of  autonomy  in  the  application  of  different 
mechanisms pertaining to the Market Policy. 

The CMO was created to achieve the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the TFEU. There is also a need 
to focus on sustainable exploitation of fishing resources and better fisheries governance. 

28

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  104/2000  establishing  a  Common  Market  Organisation  in  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  products  does  not  contain  any  specific  provision  for  its  revision  by  a  given  deadline. 
Obligations to evaluate the existing legislation and shortcomings identified, together with the links between 
Market  and  Conservation  policies,  within  the  framework  of  the  CFP  reform,  represent  an  opportunity  to 
revisit the relevance of its objectives and instruments. In addition, there is a need to align the CMO with the 
new framework set out in the Lisbon Treaty. 

SECTION 4  OBJECTIVES  

4.1.  General objectives 

The  future  Market  Policy  should  contribute  and  strengthen  the  CFP  objectives  of  managing  resources, 
giving  rise  to  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  which  would  be  run  in  a  much  more  sustainable  manner 
(economic, social and environmental). The specific objectives for each problem area are outlined in Table 
10 and discussed in the following texts. 

Table 10: Specific objectives for the main problems identified 

Problems 

Specific objectives 

Limited  contribution  of  the  EU  Market  Policy  to 
sustainability of production 

Reinforced  market  incentives  to  support  sustainable 
production practices   

Deterioration of market position of EU production 

Improve market position of EU production  

Inability to anticipate and manage market fluctuations  

Better connect EU production to the  EU  market  

Under exploited market potential 

Enhance market potential of EU products 

Complex framework and burdensome implementation 

Support better governance and simplification 

4.2.  Specific objectives 

4.2.1.  Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable production practices  

Environmental  sustainability  is  a  precondition  for  economic  and  social  sustainability.  Market 
development and policy should contribute to this objective by bringing value to sustainable practices and 
restricting access to unsustainable products.  

EU  producers  (fisheries  and  aquaculture)  within  PO's  are  on  the  coal  face  of  production,  day  to  day 
resource  management  and  market  issues.  They  are  core  stakeholders  with  a  potentially  strong  role  in 
consistent  implementation  of  various  components  of  the  CFP.  Their  role,  responsibility  and  mandate 
should  be  reviewed  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the  reform  of  the  CFP  in  order  to  direct  production 
activities  towards  sustainability.  Other  operators  upstream  in  the  sector should also be targeted so as to 
become more committed and responsible for sustainability of their sourcing. In this context, marketing of 
sustainable production should be encouraged. 

4.2.2.  Improve market position of EU production 

While  considering  the  structural  constraints  and  uncertainties  presented  in  Section  3,  there  is  space  for 
improvement in the way EU producers manage their production activities and put their products onto the 
market.  Addressing  market  imperfections  and  changes,  as  well  as  organisational  matters,  leads  to  the 
following operational objectives:  

• 

• 

Improve producer activities by grouping supply and better marketing their products (first sale) 

Increase competitiveness of EU production (quality, innovation and added value)  

•  Reinforce bargaining power of producers  

29

 
 
 
 
 
• 

Improve level playing field conditions of EU production vis à vis imports 

•  Prevent circumvention of conservation measures by imported fish products 

4.2.3.  Better connect the EU production to the market 

Structural market changes and short term fluctuations should be better reflected in producers’ strategies. 
From an operational point of view, this supports the development of market knowledge and analysis on 
the  demand  side  and  on  competing  supplies  for  the  fishery  and  aquaculture  producers  in  view  of 
improving  and  adapting  planning  of  their  production.  Improvement  of  management  abilities  would 
contribute  to  the  achievement  of  this  objective.  As  far  as  coordination  along  the  marketing  chain  is 
concerned,  increased  transparency  of  markets  should  facilitate  supply  meeting  demand  and  enhance 
policy decision making. A complete review of the market intervention policy is needed on this account.  
The volatility of first sale prices can be reduced by improving conditions for placing POs’ products on the 
market  and  by  ensuring  that  production  is  planned  and  adjusted  to  demand  in  terms  of  quality  and 
quantity.  POs  would  more  effectively  concentrate  the  supply  and  marketing  of  the  products  of  their 
members. 

4.2.4.  Enhance market potential of EU products 

The functioning of the internal market for fisheries and aquaculture products is suboptimal in particular 
due to information failure. From a business to business perspective and taking into account the increased 
distant buying and potentialities of e-commerce, adequate and precise products specifications (freshness, 
grading etc) should be more easily available to purchasers. The comparative advantages of EU production 
(freshness,  local,  variety  etc.)  could  be  better  exploited  with  more  differentiation  and  merchandising. 
Finally  EU  consumers  have  the  right  to  be  informed  with  more  precise  and  reliable  information  to 
reinforce confidence in fishery and aquaculture products. 

4.2.5.  Support better governance and simplification 

The desired objective in terms of legal framework should be to strengthen consistency with the reformed 
CFP. The current CMO should be integrated as one "Chapter" into the new single basic regulation on the 
CFP. It is also necessary to adapt the CMO to the new framework set out by the TFEU. 

The existing provisions and instruments should be reviewed, simplified and clarified. 

Without  pre-judging  decision  on  the  future  EU  financial  framework,  the  Market  Policy  should  be 
supported in the context of a new financial fund to be implemented within the reformed CFP. 

The  administrative  burden  and  stakeholder's  obligations  in  implementing,  monitoring  and  controlling 
Market Policy should be reduced at the most adequate level. 

30

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.  Intervention logic  

The links between the specific objectives and the policy tools can be summarised as follows: 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVES

OPERATIONAL TOOLS 

POLICY TOOLS 

Reinforced market incentives to support 
sustainable production practices 
 (fishery and aquaculture) 

Anticipation, prevention and management 
of crisis

Reduction / elimination of discards + 
treatment of their compulsory landings

Improve market position of EU production  
(fishery and aquaculture) 

Market premium for  
sustainable practices and certification

Bargaining power of  
the production side (FAPs)

Competitiveness  of EU FAPs  
 (production and processing) 

Better connect the EU production to the EU 
market (fishery and aquaculture) 

Enhance market potential of EU products 
(fishery and aquaculture) 

Indirect impact

Direct impact

Empowerment and 
co-management of 
fishing activities  

Interbranch

Intervention price  
at decentralised level 
 + storage aid 

Production (grouping 
supply) + Market 
planning 

Mimimun sizes , etc. 

Extension of mandatory + 
voluntary information to 
consumers 

Level playing field of 
trade 

Extend and 
disseminate market and 
economic analysis 

Organisation of the sector  
( POs, IBOs)  

Market Intervention  

Marketing standards  

Information to consumer  

Autonomous tariff policy  

EU Market Observatory  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SECTION 5: POLICY OPTIONS  

On  the  basis  of  evaluations  conducted,  stakeholders  views,  specific  objectives  defined  and  policy  tools 
identified, four options have been analysed. 

(cid:190)  Option 1 : Continuation of the current Common Market Organisation (hereafter "Status quo") 

(cid:190)  Option  2:  Adjustments  of  the  current  Common  Market  Organisation  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture 

products (hereafter "Adjustments") 

(cid:190)  Option 3 : Enhanced Market Policy for fisheries and aquaculture products (hereafter  "Enhanced 

Market Policy ") 

(cid:190)  Option  4 :  Deregulation  of  the  current  Common  Market  Organisation  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture 

products (hereafter "Deregulation"). 

Option 2 reduces intervention mechanisms to a single storage aid for fishery products destined for human 
consumption.  It  deals  with  inconsistencies  between  minimum  landing  and  marketing  sizes.  It  makes 
revision of tariff quotas and autonomous suspension more flexible (every 3 years). 

Option  3  is  the  same  as  option  2,  but  empowering  POs  and  Inter-Branch  Organisations  (IBOs)  with 
additional  tasks  and  granting  them  financial  support  to  draw  and  implement  sustainable  production  and 
marketing  plans.  This  option  also  simplifies  and  adapts  the  scope  of  marketing  standards;  it  inserts  the 
respect  of  international  conventions  for  fisheries  governance  for  sourcing  under  preferential  autonomous 
tariff arrangement; it sets up a European Market Observatory; it extends mandatory consumer information 
and its scope to all products (fresh, frozen, canned, processed). It provides a framework to ensure accuracy 
and control of voluntary labelling. 

Option  4  no  CMO.  This  option  suppresses  all  financial  support  (intervention  and  support  to  collective 
actions)  and  any  specific  legal  instrument  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products.  No  precondition  for 
imported fisheries and aquaculture products. 

The four options are described in more details by the following specific objectives:  

5.1.  Reinforced EU policy market incentives to support sustainable production practices  

Option 1: Status quo 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

•  POs  :  manage  market 

intervention 
mechanisms 
(withdrawals, 
carry 
over,  private  storage, 
tuna 
compensatory 
allowance)  

•  POs 

: 

planning 
marketing 
production 
operational 
programmes 

develop 
and 
of 
within 

•  Elimination 

of 
withdrawal mechanism; 
•  Introduction 
of 
simplified 
single 
storage  aid  for  fishery 
stored 
products 
and 
/processed 
reintroduced  onto 
the 
human 
for 
market 
setting 
consumption; 
orientation 
at 
adequate level 

price 

•  Review  of  minimum 
marketing  size  to  be 
consistent 
with 
biological size  

ensure 

Same as option 2 and add: 
•  Empower  POs  by  strengthening  their 
sustainable 
missions 
to 
activities  of 
(co-
management  of  fishing  opportunities, 
reduction  of  aquaculture  impact  on 
the  environment 
,  control  and 
sanction of their members, reduction / 
elimination of discards,) 

their  members 

•  Facilitate  partnership 

(  POs  and 
IBOs)    for  sustainable  production, 
sourcing  and  consumption    (standard 
contract,  eco-labelling,  information) 
including  at transnational level 

•  Preferential 
arrangement 
countries 
framing 
conventions 
fisheries governance.  

that 

autonomous 
for 

sourcing 
respect 

tariff 
only 
global 
international 

•  Operators organised in a 
voluntary and private 
way or according 
national law. 

•  Only private initiatives  
to move to sustainable 
sourcing and 
consumption 

•  No sustainability pre-

conditions on imports in 
trade instrument  

32 

 
5.2.  Improve market position of EU production 

Option 1: Status quo 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

for 
in 

POs 

•  Provisions 
supporting 
aquaculture  
•  Autonomous 

to 

tariff 
policy  with  tariff  quotas 
autonomous 
and 
be 
suspensions 
revised  on  a  3  yearly 
of 
basis.  Coverage 
measures 
to 
limited 
un/semi-processed 
products 

supply 

Same as option 2 and add: 
•  Support  to  fishing/aquaculture  POs 
(through 
and/or  POs  associations 
concentration 
and 
of 
production  and  marketing  planning 
including 
improvement  of  product 
quality and innovation) 
•  Strengthen  missions  of 

to 
develop measures intended to enhance 
coordination  within  the  value  chain, 
both  at  national  and 
transnational 
levels. 

IBOs 

•  Organisation 

of 
production  managed  by 
private operators. 

•  Without pre-condition  for 
imports  a  level  playing 
field 
should  disappear 
putting  at  risk  the  move 
towards  more  market 
oriented policy  

•  Reference prices would no 

longer apply. 

•  Current  PO  quality 

plans 

for 

fixed 

•  Current  Autonomous 
tariff  policy  maintains 
existing  shape.  Tariff 
suspensions  defined  in 
the 
1999 
the 
duration 
of 
tariff 
regulation  and 
quota 
reductions 
revised  every  3  years. 
accompanied 
System 
by 
price 
reference 
system.  Coverage  of 
measures 
to 
limited 
un/semi-processed 
products 

5.3.  Better connect EU production to the EU market 

Option 1: Status quo 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

•  No  market  intervention 

mechanisms  

•  Market 

analysis 
left 

and 
to 

transparency 
private operators.  

•  Current 

intervention 
remains. 

market 
policy 

•  Reduce 

intervention 
mechanisms  to  a  single 
storage  aid  (no  public 
aid  for  withdrawal  of 
fish) for fishery products 
re-introduced 
the 
human 
for 
market 
consumption.  

to 

Same as option 2 and add: 
•  Strengthen  POs  missions  to  ensure  a 
better    planning  and  grouping  of  their 
production  and 
is 
adjusted to demand in terms of quality, 
quantity and presentation 

that  production 

along 

•  Foster  new  missions  for  IBOs  to 
improve 
the 
coordination 
marketing  chain  (standard  contracts, 
exchange  of  information),  innovation, 
new  market  outlets),  and  actions  of  
common 
(promotion  and  
information campaign)  

interest 

•  Establish 

a 

European  Market 
Observatory32 to provide operators and 
policy  makers  with  information  all 
along  the  value  chain  and  to  improve 
transparency of the markets 

•  If  necessary  accompanying  measures 
for  placing discards species landed on 
the market 

5.4. Enhance market potential of EU products 

Option 1: Status quo 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

32 A European Market Observatory is not in place currently. The on-going preparatory action (see Annex 8 for more 
details) would provide harmonised economic information allowing stakeholders, and public authorities to have a 
global overview of European markets and to compare different local or regional market situations. Mainly, based 
on the current data reporting obligations, it would collect and harmonise market data all along the supply chain of 
fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe. Moreover, it would produce relevant charts and tables as well as ad 
hoc market analyses and ensure an adequate and rapid dissemination of this information to all users concerned. 

33

 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Existing 

marketing 
standards on freshness, 
minimum  marketing 
sizes,  provision 
for 
canned tuna remain. 

•  Compulsory 
to 
information 
consumers  remains  (3 
criterias).  

•  Review 

marketing 
to  enhance 
standards 
consistency 
between 
landing  and  marketing 
minimum sizes. 

•  Compulsory  information 
to consumers remains.  

Same as option 2 and add: 
•  Simplification  and  adaptation  of 
marketing  standards  (elimination  of 
freshness  categories  and  grading; 
adaption  of  standards  for  canned 
products to conservation requirements 
and international obligations) 

•  Reinforcement 

of 

mandatory 
requirements  for  information  to  EU 
consumers  (extension  to  canned  and 
processed  products;  more  precise 
information  on  product  provenance; 
additional 
indications  of  defrosted 
products and day of capture;  

•  Frame 

information: 
for  voluntary 
social 
(environmental,  ethical  or 
claims,  production 
techniques  and 
production practices) possibilities and 
set  minimum 
legal 
requirements if necessary in line with 
international and EU guidelines33. 

basis 

to 

•  Suppression  of  marketing 
standards  for  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  products  (except 
to  respect  EU  international 
commitment  such  as 
for 
canned sardines or tuna).  

•  No 

•  No 

specific 

compulsory 
information 
to  consumers 
(without  prejudice  of  others 
EU law on labelling). 
specific 

for 
frame 
voluntary 
information 
provided  on  a  private  basis 
(without  prejudice  of  others 
EU law on labelling).  

•  Support 

(quality, 
certification 
production  techniques),  innovation 
at 
promotion 
and 
transnational level. 

including 

5.5. Support better governance and simplification 

Option 1: Status quo 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

•  4 Council Regulations 
and 23 implementing 
Commission 
Regulations 

•  1 Council Regulation, 

6 Commission 
Regulations to set 
guide prices and 
intervention prices 
•  2 financial instruments 
: EAGF (centralised 
management) and EFF 
(shared management) 

•  Only  one  Council  and 

EP Regulation   

•  No  yearly    Regulations 

for prices 

•  One 

single 

financial 
instrument 
(new  EU 
Fund  for  Maritime  and 
Fishery  Policy) manage 
under 
shared 
management. 

•  Concentration  and  simplification  of 
financial  support  in  one  single  CFP 
financial instrument.  

•  Reduce  the  number  of  legal  acts  and 
simplify  management  of  markets 
instruments.  

•  Include  more  flexible  mechanisms 
interventions,  autonomous 

(market 
suspensions and quotas…) 

and  management 

•  EU  financial  support  for  collective 
actions by POs and IBOs (storage aid, 
of 
planning 
production  and  marketing 
(e.g. 
for  quality,  promotion, 
support 
level, 
transnational 
at 
including 
labelling, certification, etc.) 

•  No autonomous tariff quota 
and suspension in a specific 
Council Regulation for 
fisheries and aquaculture 
products 

•  Only Article 31 of the TFEU 
(Common Customs Tariff 
duties) applies for 
unprocessed and semi-
processed products. (DG 
TAXUD leads, DG MARE 
associated) (bi-annual 
Council Regulation based on 
MS request). 

•  No financial instrument to 
support the Market Policy 

33 December 2010 Commission Communication: EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2010/C 341/04) :  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:en:PDF 

34

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
SECTION 6: METHODOLOGY USED  

6.1.  Sources and data 

The impact assessment is based on the external evaluations that measured the effects of CMO instruments 
on development of sustainable fishing, price stability and market balance, income of producers, quality of 
the products and information to consumers. 

The evaluation focused on all fisheries and aquaculture products concerned by Regulation 104/2000 in its 
annex  1  with  particular  focus  on  products  eligible  to  market  intervention.  Large  surveys  and  bilateral 
meetings involved POs, fisheries and aquaculture organisations and MS. Field visits took place in 10 MS: 
meetings  with  national  administrations,  research  centres,  producers,  wholesalers,  processing  industry, 
importers and retailers. Eight detailed case studies were published on marketing and business potential of 
certain fisheries and aquaculture products in specific markets34.  

Data collection and analysis are based on Eurostat, Comext, FIDES, FAO and DG Mare’s own calculation. 
Analysis was limited by large variations of data availability between EU MS. 

6.2.  Methodology to assess impacts 

Options 2, 3 and 4 are assessed in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence and are analysed 
vis  à  vis  the  expected  development  of  the  Base  Line  scenario  (option  1:  Status  Quo).  Quantitative, 
qualitative and trends analysis have been conducted. 

Assessment  of  impact  of  the  organisation  of  the  sector  is  complex  and  of  a  quantitative  and  qualitative 
nature.  The  percentage  of  EU  production  covered  by  POs  provides  a  relevant  indicator  (annex  2  and  3). 
Benchmarking analyses with other food sectors and market policies (Common Organisations of Market in 
agricultural sectors) have been conducted. In particular, detailed analysis and comparison with the reform 
of Fruit and Vegetables CMO demonstrated common features (fresh products, numerous producers, price 
volatility…). Objectives of the Market Policy are also similar to some extent: contribute to protection of the 
environment,  strengthen  the  producers’  position  and  income,  stabilise  the  market,  managing  costs, 
strengthen competitiveness. This provided useful benchmarks on policy tools to support organisation of the 
sector  for  marketing  and  crisis  management  (see  annex  5)  taking  into  account  large  differences  in  the 
budget intensity allocated for market intervention (see table 9).  

Impact  of  the  intervention  policy  is  extracted  from  the  evaluation  study  and  trend  analyses  have  been 
conducted by integrating stakeholders and MS inputs. Assessments of various scenarios of the changes in 
autonomous tariff policy have been made by DG MARE services on the basis of the current and trends in 
supply and external trade structure, using the evaluation of the EU market and COMEXT data. 

Impacts of information to consumers are based on qualitative and quantitative data, expected consumption 
trends (annex 6: EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products), number of EU 
certified fisheries and volume / value of certified products sold in the EU (see Annex 7: Overview of the 
EU market for sustainable fishing certified products), contribution from stakeholders (in particular MS and 
NGOs) and also benchmark with other food sector and market trends.  

Environment  impacts  are  indirect  and  should  be  seen  in  a  long  term  perspective:  improved  organisation 
leading to increase value of production and lower incentives to overfish, confidence and image building for 
consumers, possible contribution to implementation of a discard policy… Social impacts are also indirect 
and their analysis is based on the evaluation study and the impact assessment report on the CFP reform. 

34 Etudes de cas de filières - Annexe 3 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_market/index_en.htm 

35

 
 
                                                 
SECTION 7: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The  four  options  are  analysed  on  the  basis  of  their  economic,  social,  environmental  and  administrative 
impacts.  

7.1.  Option 1: Status quo (Base line scenario)  

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

POs activities focus on management of intervention mechanisms. No support or incentives to manage their 
fishing  activities  in  a  more  sustainable  way  or  ensure  that  aquaculture  activities  are  carried  out  in  a 
sustainable  manner.  Continuation  of  withdrawal  mechanisms  contradicts  new  CFP  objectives.  Setting  of 
minimum  marketing  sizes  raises  awareness  by  the  industry,  retail  trade  and  consumers  of  the  impact  of 
juveniles  fish  consumption  on  the  renewal  capacity  of  the  resource.  Based  on  information  available  EU 
consumers may have difficulties in making an informed choice about more responsible consumption. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT 

Organisation of the sector:   Additional services, provided by POs to its members, in particular to better 
connect their production to the market requirements, will be limited. Interbranch Organisations also remain 
rather limited in both numbers and projects conducted. 
Market  intervention  policy:      Impact  of  market  intervention  policy  with  very  limited  aid  intensity  will 
remain  concentrated  on  some  fishing  ports  and  species  which  may  therefore  be  considered  more  as 
structural aid. 
Information  to  EU  consumers:      Provisions  to  obtain  more  precise  information  on  the  provenance  of 
fisheries  products  to  meet  consumers’  expectations  will  remain  voluntary  for  operators.  Changes  in 
consumption  features  including  the  growth  of  out-of-home  consumption  (restaurant  and  catering)  and 
increased interest in sustainable fishing will not be considered. 
Autonomous  tariff  policy:      The  current  system  of  autonomous  tariff  quotas  and  suspensions  should 
continue benefiting the EU processing industry without having a negative impact on EU production. The 
budgetary impact would be around 55 M Euro of uncollected duties, i.e. uncollected revenues for the EU 
budget to be compared with tax revenues from the maintained activity and employment.   
While  autonomous  tariff  quotas  are  revised  every  three  years,  the  current  autonomous  suspensions, 
established in 1999, are not adapted to the rapidly evolving needs of the processing industry. Moreover, in 
some cases (i.e. cod) they overlap with the current quota provisions.  

SOCIAL IMPACTS  

The  effects  on  income  will  remain  restricted  to  cases  where  interventions  prevent  price  drops.  This 
represents less than 1% of the value of eligible species and focuses primarily on a few pelagic fisheries in 
four MS. Impact on employment is limited to some activities in the small pelagic sector, mainly in FR, PT, 
and SP.  
Autonomous tariff policy:   They will continue to have an impact in terms of activity and employment in 
the processing sector, allowing a cheaper supply of raw materials and maintain competitiveness of the EU 
processing sector. 

IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE 

The  current  set  of  regulations  should  be  modified  to  conform  with  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon.  Administrative 
burdens  and  implementation costs will remain for operators such as Producer Organisations, MS and the 
Commission  (i.e.  data  collection  and  exchange,  implementation  and  review,  controls).  The  current 

36

 
 
 
 
Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 and implementing regulations create 135 types of obligations (notification, 
inspection, monitoring, reporting, certification, aid request)35.  
The  impact  on  the EU budget will remain the same  36 (±15 million euro/year). The economic impact for 
producers should be very limited and should not allow funding collective initiatives to support production 
and marketing plans and management. 

7.2.  Option 2: Adjustments  

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Market  intervention  policy:    Suppressing  aid  for  withdrawal  will  have  a  rather  direct  limited  impact 
considering  the  limited  volume  concerned  by  withdrawals  in  recent  years.  It  is  still  a  strong  political 
message to support environmental sustainability of fishing activities. Setting a market oriented mechanism 
(storage aid) and fixing intervention prices at adequate levels will have a direct impact on the management 
of  PO's  fishing  activities  and  on  the  profitability  of  their  activities.  This  could  allow  extension  of  their 
missions to support more sustainable fishing practices.  

Marketing standards:  Harmonisation of minimum landing and marketing sizes to be conducted will not 
have an impact directly on resources but would rather increase consistency with the objectives of the CFP 
reform. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT  

Organisation of the sector:   Under this option, POs activities, mandate and attractiveness would mainly 
remain limited to management of intervention mechanisms which would focus on simplified storage aid.  
In terms of impact on first sale prices, producers are likely to remain as price takers, as long as they do not 
efficiently group their supply and better promote their production. 

Market  intervention  policy:    Support  to  withdrawal  will  be  abandoned  under  this  option  which, 
considering decrease in use of this instrument over the last years will steer producers to further adjust catch 
decisions to demand. 
The  disparity  as  regards  first  sale  price  formation  within  the  EU  calls  for  a  differentiated  and  more 
consistent approach across geographical areas. Therefore, setting intervention prices at a decentralised level 
on  the  basis  of  prices  recorded  during  the  three  preceding  years,  would  increase  consistency  and  bring 
intervention  prices  closer  to  market  realities.  It  would  lead  to  a  uniform  access  of  POs  to  financial 
instruments. 
A  storage  facility  would  take  into  account  the  uncertainty  of  fishing  activities  and  the  need  to  better 
structure the sector. It will help the day-to-day regulation of the market by POs in the event of unforeseen 
drops  in  market  prices  respecting  the  market  orientation  of  the  intervention  logic.  Storage  aid  would 
strengthen the added value of EU fishing products. 

Autonomous tariff policy:  Suspensions defined in 1999 are partly obsolete. Under this option they would 
be revised to match the industry's current needs. However, if under this option the current legal architecture 
is  maintained  new  suspensions  would  be  fixed  for  the  whole  duration  of  the  Market  Policy  regulation 
(CMO).  The  current  mismatch  between  nature  and  size  of  suspensions  and  needs  of  the  EU  processing 

35 Notification by MS to define a price system has led to the establishment of a detailed European database on first 
sale prices (FIDES). Administrative costs are also linked to the establishment of a list of commercial names of species 
(from 49 to 962 depending on MS) by each MS.  

36 Total expenses decreased from 15.5 million € in 2002 to 11.1 million € in 2009, where major expenses related to 
interventions.  Withdrawals  and  carry-over  represented  82%  of  the  expenditure  of  the  CMO  in  2009.  Over  the 
years withdrawals have reduced and carry-over has increased (withdrawals fell from 39% of total expenditures in 
2002 to 25% in 2009). 

37

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
industry would manifest itself a few years after the entry into force of the new regulation. This is why the 3 
yearly revision system should include not only tariff quotas but also tariff suspensions. 

Marketing  standards:  Enhancing  consistencies  between  landing  and  minimum  marketing  sizes  will 
reinforce operators' confidence but will also have limited impact.  

Information to consumers: No change compared with status quo. 

SOCIAL IMPACT  

Same limited impact as "Status quo" 

IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE  

Budget:   The impact on the EU budget will remain the same as "Status Quo".  
The impact of tariff quotas and suspensions on the EU Budget revenue would result in similar amounts to 
those calculated in option 1. 

Simplification of the legal framework and administrative burden:  This would entail suppression of 7 
legal acts by year (1 Council act fixing Guide Prices and 6 implementing acts corresponding to the current 
intervention mechanism). 
The setting of a single storage mechanism and decentralised price at an adequate level would effectively 
reduce administrative costs and should be less burdensome for MS and the Commission. In addition, it will 
simplify  financial  management  by  moving  from  the  current  combination  of  EAFG  and  EEF  funding  to 
shared management within the single financial instrument of the CFP. 

Notifications:    Decentralisation  of  the  intervention  price  at  the  adequate  level  should  reduce  the 
administrative burden for Commission services:  
MS should continue to notify the Commission for recognition of POs, associations of POs, IBOs and would 
transmit intervention prices applied at a decentralized level to the Commission.  
Reduction of reporting obligations for POs (upholding of information about price and quantities stored for 
intervention to their national competent authority). 

7.3.  Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  

Organisation of the sector:   Empowering fishery POs in collective management, monitoring and control 
of fishing opportunities allocated by the Member States concerned (including individual fishing rights and 
fishing  efforts  of  their  members)  would  significantly  support  the  new  CFP  objectives  and  strengthen  the 
sustainability  of  the  EU  fishery  sector.  Development  of  production  and  marketing  strategy  by  POs  will 
steer producers to adjust their activities. 
Collective  initiatives  improved  by  aquaculture  POs  should  also  foster  and  promote  measures  and  best 
practices to reduce the environmental impact (i.e. pollution), to manage aquaculture production including 
animal  health  and  bio-security.  POs  should  seize  collective  initiatives  more  efficiently  which  often  go 
beyond EU regulatory requirements. Moreover, IBOs' should play a significant role to promote sustainable 
practices by supporting partnerships all along the market chain up to the final consumer.  

Interventions on the market:   Same impact as the option "Adjustment" 

Information to consumers: Access for consumers to more precise information on all products whatever 
their presentation will considerably extend knowledge on fisheries and aquaculture products. This will help 
consumers to make better informed choices and support responsible consumption.  
The development of private initiatives for certification (i.e. eco-labelling schemes by NGOs, commitment 
to sustainable sourcing) provides for a strong market incentive in the right direction. However, considering 

38

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the variety and complexity of the sector and the risk of free riders or proliferation of “labels”, adequate EU 
standards frameworks would increase credibility of operators and confidence of purchasers and consumers 
on  accuracy  of  environmental  claims  and  support  the  increase  of  their  penetration  into  the  EU  market  if 
necessary. This should contribute to giving greater impetus and value to sustainable practices. 
Autonomous  tariff  arrangements  of  the  EU  market  :    To  support  this  option,  specific  EU  trade 
provisions  would  limit  sourcing  to  countries  which  have  ratified  core  conventions  on  sustainable 
development and good fishery governance. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT 

Organisation of the sector:   Benchmark analysis with the fruit and vegetable sector indicates that there is 
a clear correlation between the level of structuring of production, price stability and added value.  
Support  to  organisation  of  the  sector  by  means  of  reinforcing  roles,  rights  and  mandate  will  have  an 
indirect impact on the attractiveness of POs, associations of POs and IBOs which is difficult to quantify. 
The collective initiatives should reduce individual costs for operators. 
Under  this  option,  an  increase  of  EU  production  management  by  POs  is  expected.  Planning  and 
concentration of supply should lead to better first sale price stability. POs would play a more important role 
in supporting EU fishermen and fish farmers to grasp the market dimension of their activity with a view to 
put on the market only products that have a strong chance to find a buyer at a satisfactory price. Coherence 
of two CFP components 'market and resources' will therefore improve. 
The  EU  Market  Observatory  (see  Annex  8)  would  provide  harmonised  economic  information  allowing 
stakeholders,  and  public  authorities  to  have  a  global  overview  of  European  markets  and  to  compare 
different  local  or  regional  market  situations.  It  would  collect  and  harmonise  market  data  all  along  the 
supply chain of fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe and produce relevant charts and tables as well 
as ad hoc market analyses. It will ensure an adequate and rapid dissemination of economic information to 
all users concerned. 
Adequate  market  expertise  should  reinforce  market  positions  and  ability  to  improve  predictability  and 
anticipate  crises.  An  improvement  of  bargaining  power  of  the  producers  should  indeed  lead  to  a  more 
balanced  added  value  distribution:  stability  or  increase  of  first  sale  price  for  producers  and  increased 
predictability in volume, quality and presentation for processors and retailers.  
IBOs should support optimisation of the marketing chain by reduction of information and transaction costs. 
These should lead to an improvement in the position of operators while consumers would not be affected 
by price increase. 

Interventions on the market: Same impact as the option "Adjustment" but improved production planning 
will enable to make a more rational and effective use of market intervention instrument of storage aid. 

Marketing standards:    More adequate specifications of the products will facilitate the offer meeting the 
demand in particular to promote environmental and economic sustainability. 
It  will  facilitate  distant  buying  and  e-commerce  which  is  on  the  increase  due  to  the  interconnection  of 
electronic auctions.  
Review of product specifications would result in lower transaction costs in an integrated EU market with 
the numerous landing sites, with limited quantities of various species. 

Information  to  consumer:    Revamping  the  current  mandatory  information,  by  way  of  more  precise 
information on provenance is pertinent to support local purchase and focus on sustainable consumption and 
will be fully supported by the new EU obligation to extend the traceability of FAPs (entering into force on 
1st January 2013). In this context, the proposed extension will not create additional costs.  
This will, in particular, facilitate small scale fleets to better market their production. It is also expected to 
support or restore consumer confidence and help them to make an informed choice.  
In  the  same  vein,  the  extension  of  information  requirements  for  canned  and  processed  products  would 
satisfy consumers' expectations whatever the presentation and help preventing fraud.  
Autonomous  tariff  arrangements  of  the  EU  market  :  It  is  estimated  that  products  entering  under 
autonomous quotas and suspensions represent around 5% of the overall EU consumption of fisheries and 
aquaculture products. With reference to the use of autonomous tariff quotas in 2009, such a conditionality 

39

 
 
 
 
 
 
would lead to imports for certain important species (such as cod, surimi, shrimps and tuna loins) no longer 
benefiting  from  the  reduced  tariff  duties  but  having  to  pay  MFN  duties,  at  least  until  such  a  time  when 
exporting partner countries have engaged in the process of joining the global conventions. EU processors 
may also have to diversify their sourcing policy towards eligible partners.  

SOCIAL IMPACTS 

Market intervention policy:    This option would help support producer incomes directly and indirectly to 
maintain or foster jobs in the sector, both upstream and downstream.  
Furthermore, with better production and marketing planning, the setting of a single storage aid, would help 
to  absorb  the  impact  of  a  sudden  price  crisis  linked  to  unpredictable  conditions  and/or  changes  in  CFP 
policy (such as the introduction of new rules for discards or others conservation measures).  

Autonomous  tariff  arrangements  of  the  EU  market:    The  application  of  good  governance  and 
sustainable development pre-conditions to all trade instruments and imports would imply a significant gain 
in  terms  of  creating  a  level  playing  field  in  favour  of  EU  producers  on  their  own  market.  Limiting  this 
conditionality to the autonomous regime would make little sense as only 5% of imports are covered.  

IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE 

Budget:  The  new  single  financial  framework  for  CFP  will  support  the  synergy  between  the  intervention 
regime  (storage  aid)  and  collective  initiatives  (planning  of  production  and  marketing  initiatives)  lead  by 
POs  and  IBOs.  The  detailed  analysis  and  impact  of  the  new  financial  instrument  for  the  CFP  will  be 
developed in a separate impact assessment. Nonetheless the impact assessment for the CFP recommends to 
move  away  from  the  fleet  support  in  favour  of  smart,  green,  innovative  and  market-oriented  solutions. 
While option 3 advocates increasing concentration of mission and implementation through POs, financial 
support  to  the  organisation  of  the  sector should be enhanced accordingly. This is in line with reforms of 
market policy in agriculture products that shifted from direct support to production to concentration of aid 
on marketing and adding value of first sale. 

With the exception of transnational initiatives, these will be financed under the shared management of the 
single  financial  instrument  instead  of  the  current  combination  of  EAGF  and  EFF  funding.  Additional 
funding will be necessary to finance the functioning of the EU Market Observatory mainly, based on the 
current data reporting obligations37. Opening and revision autonomous tariff quotas and suspensions would 
result in terms of the EU Budget revenue, approximately to 55 million euro/year of uncollected duties.  
The level of financial resources needed cannot currently be definitively estimated. Past Community funding 
under FIFG for the period 2000-2006 for measures covering collective actions amounted to €56 Million in 
commitment  appropriations  per  yea)38.  The  net  present  value  in  2010  is  €60  Million  (2%  discount  rate). 
The  final  allocation  of  the  funds  under  the  future  financial  instrument  for  the  Market  Policy  (including 
storage  aid,  production  and  marketing  plan  and  other  market  measures)  will  be  done  by  MS  following 
negotiations with the concerned POs and IBOs. Methodology and budget repartition will be defined in the 
impact assessment of the financial instrument of the CFP. 

37The annual budget should be estimated between 1 to 5 million euros according to the option retained at the end of 

the on-going preparatory action (end of 2012)  

38 Source: Ex-Post evaluation of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) 2000-2006, p39: Measure 44 
- Operations by members of the trade (kEUR 253.388) + Measure 43 – Promotion of new market outlets (kEUR 
138.593) = kEUR 391.981 over 7 years, i.e. Eur 56 Mio / year. 

40

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Simplification  of  the  legal  framework  and  administrative  burden:  Simplification  of  the  overall  legal 
framework  by  focusing  on  essential  provisions.  Same  extensive  simplification  for  market  intervention 
mechanism  and  related  decentralised  price  setting  as  in  “Adjustment”  option.  Considering  the  lack  of 
explicit  market  failure  or  consensus  of  the  sector  for  marketing  standards  ,  it  is  envisaged  to  encourage 
operators to define possible additional product specifications or new standards. 
Notification: same as “Adjustment” option. 

7.4.  Option 4: Deregulation 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  

Organisation of the sector: Lack of support for POs will negatively affect coordination of their activities 
to implement sustainable fishing practices. It would limit management efforts currently undertaken by POs.  

Information  to  consumers:  Removal  of  obligatory  information  will  prevent  consumers  from  making 
informed choices. Market incentives to move to sustainable sourcing and consumption are increasing in EU 
based  on  private  initiatives.  Processors,  catering  companies,  restaurants  and  large  retails  companies  are 
setting  environmental  commitments  and  increasingly  sourcing  from  certified  fisheries.  Joint-marketing 
campaigns on sustainable fishing involving processors and supermarkets are currently being developed in 
France and the Netherlands. As previously mentioned, this new market development still needs to build up 
credibility and confidence. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT 

Organisation  of  the  sector:  Elimination  of  Market  Policy  instruments  would  take  away  incentives  for 
sector structuring, and result in the disappearance of many POs, whose attractiveness is largely linked to 
opportunities  for  intervention  and  aid  for  planning  and  quality.  It  would  also  weaken  the  position  of 
producers  to  negotiate  and  limit  ability  to  adapt  supply  to  demand  (supply  atomised  and  lack  of 
coordination between producers).  

Market  intervention  policy:  Elimination  of  CMO  instruments,  including  interventions  and  price 
mechanisms  would  remove  existing  safety  nets,  and  therefore  nothing  would  prevent  a  price  decrease  in 
case  of  crises.  It  would  eliminate  current  disparities  in  the  utilisation  of  mechanisms  between  MS  and 
production sectors and stimulate producers to seek alternative production planning and commercial outlets, 
thus limiting windfall effects.  

Autonomous  tariff  policy:  Deregulation  would  mean  that  free  trade  cannot  be  conditional  and  market 
should  solve  conflicting  interests  between  producers  and  processors.  The  latter  would  push  for  quick 
general  liberalisation  of  tariffs  and  rules  of  origin  in  order  to  secure  a  regular  and  cheap  flow  of  raw 
material. The former would on the contrary ask for more protection or at least maintain it at current levels. 
This option would not be compatible with the need for a gradual policy move towards more "market" that 
is favoured by most EU government in this sector.  

Until such time as other trade instruments (WTO NAMA, FTAs, GSP, etc.) match / compensate the level of 
liberalisation currently provided by the existing autonomous regime, the processing industry itself would 
loose the benefit it enjoys today of  55 million euros a year. 

Finally, the processing industry understands that as much as it would like to have access to raw material 
they would suffer from unconditional exposure to imports of processed fish products and a large part of it 
would have to resolve to delocalising production. 

Marketing  standards:  Removing  standards  would  result  in  the  loss  of  a  common  reference  in  a 
fragmented  sector  and  would  potentially  lead  to  the  establishment  of  standards  at  MS  level  leading  to 

41

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
internal  market  fragmentation.  Some  private  initiatives  also  lead  to  increase  normalisation  and 
standardisation. This is the case in highly integrated sectors such as pelagics species, where more precise 
freshness  standards  are  being  developed.  This  is  however  unlikely  to  materialise  in  other  less  integrated 
sectors. 

Information to consumers: Removing mandatory information that would be replaced by information on a 
private and voluntary basis is a workable option. General EU legislation on information to consumers on 
foodstuffs will apply.  

Many  operators  already  provide  more  information  on  their  products  than  the  minimum  mandatory 
requirements.  As  previously  mentioned,  major  operators  are  committed  to  increase  their  sustainable 
sourcing.  Pressure  from  environmental  and  consumer  NGOs  is  increasing  with  the  establishment  of 
consumers’  guides,  retailers  ranking,  and  campaigns.  This  will,  however,  not  fully  meet  the  objective  of 
better  informing  EU  consumers  and  enhance  their  knowledge  on  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  to 
enable them to make an informed choice.  

In  addition,  observed  cases  of  weak  and  misleading  environmental  allegations  jeopardise  the  process  of 
improving  fishing  and  commercial  practices  and  restoring  both  the  fishing  stocks  and  the  image  of  the 
sector.  Stakeholders  (producers,  processors,  certification  organisation,  NGOs,  retailers)  engaged  in 
supporting sustainable fishing are calling for additional legal initiatives at EU level in this field due to the 
complexity of the sector and the risk of free rider behaviour. 

SOCIAL IMPACT 

The  removal  of  market  instruments,  in  particular  carry-over,  is  likely  to  impact  on  some  sectors  (small 
pelagic canneries) that could relocate outside the EU. In these cases, impact on jobs and income would be 
substantial at local scale. 

IMPACTS ON GOVERNANCE 

Simplification  of  the  legal  framework  and  administrative  burden:      Important  reduction  of  EU  legal 
instruments (only to respect international commitments such as market standards). 

Budget:  The  removal  of  the  intervention  mechanism  would  reduce  EU  financial  aid  by  15  million 
Euros/year. 
The direct cost of a general suspension of tariff duties would constitute a loss of revenue for the EU budget 
amounting to more than 510 million Euros (uncollected duties).  

Notifications: Administrative costs detailed in previous options would disappear. 

42

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11: Summary of impacts and administrative burden by option 

f
o

e
p
y
T

t
c
a
p
m

I

C
I
M
O
N
O
C
E

Criteria 

Option 2: Adjustments 

Option 3: Enhanced Market Policy 

Option 4: Deregulation 

Direct/indirect  Direct (limited) 

Direct and Indirect 

Direct and Indirect 

Who 

Producers,  processors,  public 
authorities 

Producers, processors, retailers, consumers public authorities 

producers, processors, retailers, consumers  

Link  with  base 
line option 

national 
cooperation 

and 
Improved 
transnational 
for 
aquaculture and fisheries Pos and 
IBOs 

Concentration of supply. Facilitation of interbranch operations 
and storage facility: Increase incentive to better anticipate the 
demand,  better  price  stability,  reinforcement  of  market 
positions, more balanced added value distribution.  

Weaker  position  of  producers.  Removal  of  safety 
nets 

Stimulus for producers to seek alternative production 
planning 

Similar access to raw material for processing industry 
with possible transitional disruption. 

Storage facility will contribute to 
absorb  unexpected  landings  and 
prevent price drops –increased of 
stability of first sale price 

Continued  adaption  to  needs  of 
processing  industry  in  terms  of 
Autonomous Tariff Quotas 

Increased available and updated market analysis 

Improved production planning.  

Improve  access  to  competitive  sourcing  for  EU  processors. 
Periodic revision of autonomous tariff and suspensions 

Fragmentation of the market increases 

Weak consumer position to make informed choices 

Increase level playing field conditions with imports 

Improve  consumers  confidence  by  making available accurate 
and reliable information  

Risks 

- EU CFP policy fails 

- Fuel price increases 

- EU CFP policy fails -  No compliance and lack of control on 
labelling - Limited financial support 

EU CFP policy fails - No compliance, lack of control 
on labelling -  Lack of confidence of EU consumers 

- Fuel price increases 

- Fuel price increases  

Indicators: 

► Stability of first sale prices  

►  Stability  of  first  sale  prices  ►  EU  market  Observatory 
delivers  short,  medium  and 
►  Number  of  POs  and  association  of  POs  ►    %  of 
production  ►  Number  and % of EU fisheries certified ► % 
of  certified  products  on  the  EU  market  ►    Consumers 
confidence (panels) 

term  economic  data   

long 

► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►% of 
certified products on the EU market  ►  Consumers 
confidence (panels) 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
A
T
N
E
N
O
R
I
V
N
E

L
A
I
C
O
S

E
C
N
A
N
R
E
V
O
G

Direct/indirect
: 

Who 

Link  with  base 
line option  

Risks 

Indicators 

Direct and indirect 

Direct and Indirect 

Indirect  

Mainly: 
authorities 

producers, 

public 

Mainly:  producers,  processors,  retailers,  consumers  public 
authorities 

Mainly:  producers,  processors,  retailers,  consumers 
public authorities 

landing 

Consistency 
and 
marketing  sizes;  No  more  public 
to  withdrawal;  No 
support 
sustainable 
incentives 
practices 

for 

Increased  responsibilities  and 
incentives  for  sustainable 
practices;  Improved  consistency  of  the  CFP;  Possibilities  to 
accompany  policy 
increased  consumer 
  on  discards; 
confidence on environmental claims  

Market  driven  development  only.  No  market 
instruments for a possible discards policy. 
Consumers  will  not  fully  be  able  to  make  informed 
choices, Risks of misleading consumers 

No  compliance  and 
control on labelling 

lack  of 

No compliance and lack of control on labelling 
Limited financial support 

No compliance and lack of control on labelling 

►  Number  and  %  of  EU 
fisheries  certified 
  ►  %  of 
certified  products  on  the  EU 
market 

► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►  % of certified 
products on the EU market 

► Number and % of EU fisheries certified  ►   % of 
certified products on the EU market 

Direct/indirect 

Indirect 

Direct and Indirect 

Who 

Mainly: producers, processors  

Mainly:  producers, processors,  

Link  with  base 
line option 

Risks 

Indicators 

Same as baseline impact 

Fuel price increases 
► Jobs and incomes 

Jobs  and  incomes  stabilise  or  increase  in  production  and 
processing 
Structural policy of the CFP fails; Fuel price increases 
► Jobs and incomes 

Direct and Indirect 

Mainly Producers  

Possible temporary disturbances 

Fuel price increases 
► Jobs and incomes 

Direct 

Direct/indirect
: 

Direct 

Who 

Mainly: 
authorities 

Direct  

industry, 

public 

Mainly: industry, public authorities 

Mainly: industry, public authorities 

Link  with  base 
line option 

and 

Legal 
implementation 
simplification; Reduction of legal 
acts (price and interventions) 

Legal  and  implementation  simplification;  Reduction  of  legal 
acts  (price  and  interventions);  Self  regulation  ;  Improved 
transparency and effectiveness of autonomous tariff policy  

No legal framework 

Risks  

Indicators  

►  Number  of  legal  acts,    ► 
(reporting 
notifications 

IT tools not available on time 

► Number of legal acts, notifications (reporting obligation)  ►  Number  of  legal  acts,  notifications  (reporting 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obligation) 

obligation) 

45 

 
 
SECTION 8: COMPARING THE OPTIONS BY OBJECTIVES  

Based on the impacts assessed and the risks identified, options are compared vis-à-vis the baseline scenario 
(status quo) in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in relation to the objectives and in terms of coherence 
with overarching EU objectives (namely the CFP objectives but also other cross-cutting issues). This can 
be summarised as follows: 

Table 12: Comparing the options 

Specific Objectives 

Reinforced market incentives to 
support sustainable production 
practices 
Improve market position of EU 
production 
Better connect the EU production 
to the EU market 
Enhance market potential of EU 
products 
Support better governance and 
simplification 

Option 1: 
Status quo 

Option 2 : 
Adjustments 

Option 3 : 
Enhanced 
Market Policy 

Option 4 : 
Deregulation 

(cid:47) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

☺ 

☺ 

☺☺ 

☺ 

☺ 

☺ 

☺ 

(cid:46) 

(cid:47) 

(cid:46) 

(cid:46) 

☺ 

☺☺:   Option reaches the objective 

(cid:47):  

Option moves away from the objective 

☺:  

(cid:46):  

Option gets close to the objective 

(cid:47)(cid:47):   Option puts at risk the objective 

Option has no impact on the objective  

Option 1, or the status quo, was evaluated in detail and was judged partly inefficient and too complex to 
fulfil  its  current  objectives.  So  far  the  main  focus  of  the  CMO  has  been  price  stability  through  market 
intervention. This proved to have small impact and low performance; it tackled the symptoms rather than 
the real causes, sent the wrong political signals and left operators with little or no responsibility. Today, 12 
years after its adoption, the current CMO appears unfit for the challenges of the EU market. It will result 
even more ineffective in the reformed CFP, and possibly inconsistent with its underlying objectives. 

Option  2  aims  at  correcting  the  main  shortcomings  of  the  existing  CMO  by  proposing  adjustments  and 
simplifications  that  would  improve  its  functioning.  It  will  however  have  limited  impact  on  the  main 
objective of the reformed CFP. Expected results of the reform defined by operational objectives will not be 
met  in  particular  increase  bargaining  power  of  EU  production,  support  market  premium  for  sustainable 
practices and accompanying discards policy. 

Option 4 would remove the EU market policy altogether. It is true that market-driven developments and 
incentives  toward  sustainability  have  increased;  the  commitments  by  processors  and  retailers,  combined 
with  the  increased  pressure  from  NGOs  and  civil  society  to  obtain  sustainable  products,  should  bring  us 
closer to environmental objectives. Still, the main problems identified, namely the complex and fragmented 
EU supply sector and the risks of misleading or confused consumer information, would only be partially 
addressed. In fact, the industry will be given more responsibility to manage their activities, but the lack of 
support to structure their production and of accompanying market measures would contradict the reform's 
goal  to  support  market-based  instruments  (rather  than  costly  structural  measures)  and  help  producers' 
organisation improve the marketing of their products and their bargaining power.  

Option 3 proposes to enhance market policy so as to accompany the fisheries and aquaculture sector while 
it shifts toward sustainable production practices. Much can be done in terms of organisation and marketing 
to increase predictability of supply and reduce transactions costs. This option emphasises the role of each 
main stakeholder in favouring sustainable practices. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Under this Option, the structure and objective of the new market policy would be much broader and bolder: 

•  Several tools, particularly market interventions mechanisms, are abandoned. This implies a strong 

political message and tremendous simplification.  

•  Some elements, such as marketing standards and autonomous tariff policy, remain but with more 
flexibility; additional objectives are introduced (to support the development of distant selling or e-
commerce, a level playing field etc). 

•  Other  elements  are  emphasised:  the  sector  is  reorganised  with  stronger  focus  on  the  producers' 
ability  to  manage  their  production  and  market  their  products;  a  simplified  single  storage  aid  is 
foreseen  (produce  to  be  stored,  processed  and  reintroduced  onto  the  market),  information  to 
consumers is considerably extended in scope and content.  

•  One new element is the EU market observatory. 

Coherence with the CFP reform  

The impact assessment of the reform of the CFP concluded that a far-reaching reform of the Market Policy 
is necessary, one that should reinforce the role of producer and inter-branch organisations and marketing 
measures in general. This will contribute to the reform's objectives of economic sustainability while also 
helping environmental sustainability. The market policy should orient production activities to areas where 
market conditions are good and where there is a market for the fisheries and aquaculture products.  

The market policy should help increase the added value of fisheries and aquaculture products in a context 
where  financial  support  is  moved  away  from  the  fleet  (especially  scrapping  and  temporary  cessation),  in 
favour  of  smart,  green,  innovative  and  market-oriented  solutions  for  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture sector. 
More specifically, some aspects of the market reform should accompany and support the implementation of 
the new CFP: 

•  Empower  POs  to  ensure  management,  enforcement  and  control  of  fishing  activities  of  their 

members 

•  Market-based transferable fishing shares (TFSs) allow the fishing industry to adjust fleet capacity 
to the available marine resources without need for public intervention; POs could be responsible of 
collectively managing TFSs.  

•  Market  measures  accompanying  an  active  policy  for  mandatory  landing  of  all  catches  for  stocks 

subject to catch limits should be carefully defined and could be implemented by POs. 

•  Give  value  to  more  selective  and  sustainable  production  activities  and  move  away  from  strategy 
based  on  volume  with  improved  production  and  marketing  planning  by  POs  and  with  EU 
consumers playing a more active role when they are in a position to make informed choice. 

Variations  in  distributional  impacts  between  areas  or  regions  are  very  limited  due  to  a  fully  uniform 
access of POs to financial instruments and the all rules. Option 3 will put all EU POs on the same footing 
as  regards  access  to  the  different  market  mechanisms,  whatever  their  Member  State.  On  the  one  hand, 
storage aid will be triggered by intervention prices tailored to the specific market situation of each PO, thus 
avoiding  any  possible  national  discrimination  caused  by  the application of single thresholds to the entire 
EU. On the other hand, the EU financial assistance for production and marketing planning will be available 
to  all  EU  POs  with  the  only  condition  of  accomplishment  of  objectives.  Finally,  the  EU  financing  will 
amount to a fixed percentage of each PO's marketed production. 

A  broad  range  of  stakeholders  will  largely  benefit  from  an  enhanced  Market  Policy.  POs'  increased 
responsibilities  and  resources  will  provide  new  business  opportunities  to  producers  of  fishery  and 
aquaculture  products,  who  will  find  membership  more  attractive.  The  new  tariff  policy  will  improve  the 
predictability  of  supply  of  raw  materials  and  this  will  enable  processors  to  better  predict  their  activities. 
The  whole  sector  will  be  better  coordinated  and  encouraged  to  launch  initiatives  of  common  interest  in 
particular to promote sustainable fishing. Consumers will be able to make better informed choices through 
improved and more accurate labelling of fishery and aquaculture products. Finally, the simplification and 
reduction  in  administrative  burden  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  Commission,  Member  States' 
Administrations and economic operators. 

47

 
 
In view of the impact analysis DG MARE supports Option 3 to set up an enhanced Market Policy for 
fisheries and aquaculture products. 

SECTION 9: MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

As part of the CFP reform, the reform of the Market Policy will follow the timeframe of monitoring and 
evaluation of the CFP with evaluation to take place in 2017.  

Various indicators are set up by objectives to monitor and evaluate progress towards the specific objectives 
of the reform of the Market Policy (table 11). 

The  setting  up  of  the  European  Market  Observatory  will  also  enable  prices  and  margin  changes  to  be 
followed  on  a  regular  basis  as  well  as  volume  and  structure  of  landings  in  the  EU  market  together  with 
demand and consumption trends. By providing structural and short term data, it will also serve as analytical 
tool to anticipate and analyse crises and ultimately enable to evaluate to what extent the objectives of the 
Market Policy are reached and if necessary to adapt the policy framework. 

48

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

49

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: 
Current legal framework: Council Reg.(EC) n°104/2000 on the Common Organisation of the Markets of fisheries and aquaculture products 

50 

 
51 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1 Bis 
Reformed legal framework of the new Market Policy s of fishery and aquaculture products 

Common Organisation of the Markets in 
fishery and aquaculture products 

Common fishery and aquaculture Policy 
(Basic Regulation) 

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Council Reg. 

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Commission Reg  

Council Reg. 

Council Reg. 

Council Reg. 

Title I
Marketing 
standards and 
consumer info 

Title II 
Producer 
Organisations 

Title III 
Interbranch 
Organisations 

Title IV
Prices and 
Intervention 

Title V
Trade with 
Third 
countries 

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter XXV 
Market Policy for Fishery and 
aquaculture products 

Common Market Policy for fishery and 
aquaculture  

Title I 
General provisions 

Title II 
Organisation of the sector 

Title III 
Prices and Interventions 

Title IV 
Market standards and 
Information  to consumers 

Title IV 
External supply 

Impl/Del Act 

Report. Obl° 

Self regul. 

Impl/Del Act 

Council R. 

Financial instruments 

Title IV 
Market intelligence 

? 

Commission Reg  

(EC) Commission R 
2003/2006 
Financing by EAGF 
of CMO 
expenditure

(EC) Council R 
1198/2006  
on the European 
Fisheries Fund 

Title IV 
Final Provisions 

Financial instrument for the CFP

Title I ……../…………..

Title I ……../…………..

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: 
Presentation and evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) n° 104/2000 on the Common 
Organisation of the Markets of fishery and aquaculture products 

1. Performance of the current Market Organisation 

Analysis  and  evaluation  of  the  performance  and  relevance  of  the  financial  and  non-financial 
instruments  of  the  current  Common  Market  legislation  (Reg.  (EC)  N°  104/2000)  has  been 
conducted in 2008 and  2009  based  on seven evaluation questions. The study is available on the 
internet. The main findings can be summarised as follow: 

Sustainability of fishing activities in line with the CFP 

The  current  CMO  introduced  the  environmental  dimension  in  order  to  direct  fishing  activities 
towards  sustainability.  The  effectiveness  of  the  CMO  was  conditioned  by  internal  and  external 
inconsistencies,  namely  the  diversity  of  instruments  (financial:  FIFG,  EAGF;  management  of 
resources: quotas, data gathering); inconsistencies between CMO and CFP; inconsistencies within 
CMO  (lack  of  evaluation  of  operational  programmes  for  POs  sharing  stocks);  the  operation  of 
each PO in their fisheries and their coordination with other POs. 

Although the overall impact of the CMO is mixed, there are positive effects on the sustainability 
of  fishing  activities:  Strengthening  of  minimum  sizes  by  POs  and/or  national  authorities; 
educational value of operational programmes in the planning of fishing activities; partnership of 
POs  in  research  programmes  about  selectivity  of  fishing  techniques;  internal  PO  rules  on  catch 
limitations; evolution of intervention towards less wasteful practices. 

Stability of the markets  

Overall,  the  guide  prices  had  little  impact  on  the  market  prices.  Similarly,  the  effect  of 
intervention  on  price  stability  was  restricted  to  the  correction  of  periodic  fluctuations  in  pelagic 
species. Therefore, the role of intervention is limited to a safety net which avoids excessive price 
fluctuations in some local markets. 

Competitiveness of the sector 

Competitiveness  seems  to  be  more  affected  by  other  important  regulatory  and  socio-economic 
factors.  The  CMO  contributed  to  the  structuring  of  the  sector  but  the  weak  acceptance  of 
interbranch  organisations  shows  that  the  CMO  did  not  produce  the  expected  results.  The  CMO 
impact on competitiveness was mixed and limited to upstream stages of the value chain. Only the 
trade arrangements with third countries appear to have direct effects on competitiveness, but only 
for the processing industry. 

Income of producers 

The  effect  of  the  structuring  of  the  sector  in  POs  and  the  intervention  measures  varied  with  the 
Member State and the species. Certain POs made proper use of the CMO and put in place market 
measures which yielded better prices for some products and strengthened the producers' position. 
Nevertheless,  the  impact  of  operational  programmes  was  rather  limited.  The  effects  of  the 
intervention mechanisms were restricted to safety net in the event of crisis. 

Overall  the  CMO  had  little  effect  on  the  development  of  producers'  incomes.  Other  external 
factors  to  the  CMO  played  a  more  important  role:  cyclical  factors  (reduction  in  catches,  rise  in 

53

 
 
costs  not  compensated  by  price  levels)  and  structural  factors  (insufficient  distribution  of  added 
value  throughout  the  value  chain,  low  transparency  in  certain  markets,  inadequate  market 
structures). 

Creation of new jobs or safeguard of existing jobs in the fisheries sector 

Given the modest budget of the CMO (around 10 M€ per year), the direct effects on employment 
are  very  weak.  Some  indirect  effects  are  related  to  the  structuring  of  the  sector  in  POs  and  the 
concentration  of  the  offer,  although  limited.  On  the  other  hand,  the  opening  of  tariff  quotas 
provided  supplies  of  raw  materials  to  the  processing  industry  in  appropriate  quantity  and  price, 
thus maintaining companies and jobs in an indirect manner. 

Quality of products 

Neither the common marketing standards nor the quality improvement plans had direct effects on 
product quality, the latter being limited to the submission of only 4 plans. The marketing standards 
however  played  an  important  role  in  the  grading  of  freshness  according  to  harmonised  quality 
standards. Overall, the quality improved in the last years but this was mainly due to other factors 
such as market constraints, modernisation of the fleet, FIFG investments, and private initiatives. 

Knowledge of consumers about fishery products 

The consumer information provisions provided a harmonised minimum set of information while 
leaving  flexibility  to  the  MS  or  the  sector  to  add  further  information.  Nevertheless,  the 
effectiveness  of  the  provisions  was  affected  by  a  mixed  application  depending  on  the  Member 
State,  insufficient  controls  in  certain  MS,  and  a  number  of  infringements.  Knowledge  about 
fisheries  products  progressed  overall  but  the  effect  of  the  legislation  was  indirect  and  relatively 
information  campaigns, 
marginal.  External  factor  played  a  more 
communication by NGOs or professional organisations, marketing information. 

important  role, 

i.e. 

2. Policy, legal and financial instruments 

A Common Market Organisation (CMO) for fisheries and aquaculture products is in operation39. 
Its legal basis is Article 40 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Like 
the  market  organisations  in  agricultural  products,  the  CMO  is  designed  to  accompany  the 
operation and development of the internal market for fisheries products. The CMO was created to 
achieve the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the TFEU in the fisheries sector, in particular to 
provide market stability and to guarantee a fair income for producers.  

The CMO's main goals are to (1) promote price stability, (2) ensure an optimal balance between 
supply  and  demand  through  public  intervention  on  the  market  and  production  planning,  (3) 
strengthen competitiveness, (4) ensure supply of the EU processing industry while respecting the 
interest of EU producers, (5) convey proper information to the consumer. The current CMO is also 
specifically designed to contribute to the CFP's general objective of seeking sustainable fisheries 
and to secure the future of the fishery sector. 

39 Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22 

54

 
 
 
                                                 
The  CMO  is  run  on  the  basis  of  4  Council  Regulations  and  23  implementing  Commission 
Regulations,  which  cover  its  different  instruments,  i.e.  organisation  of  the  sector  in  producer 
organisations  and  interbranch  organisations,  price  and  intervention  mechanisms,  common 
marketing standards, consumer information, and certain tariff arrangements to facilitate imports of 
raw materials for processing (tariff suspensions and quotas). 

 Financial instruments 

The different mechanisms pertaining to the CMO are funded by two financial instruments: 

•  The Structural Fund for Fisheries (FIFG until 31 December 2006, EFF as of 1 January 
2007)  supports  structural  measures  in  the  fisheries  sector  including  certain  actions 
undertaken by Producers Organisations (POs); 

•  The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGGF until 15 October 2006; EAGF as 

of 16 October 2006) finances operating expenses of POs. 

Further  to  the  financing  of  the  CMO  mechanisms,  the  EAGF  also  supports  the 
compensation  scheme  for  the  outermost  regions  (total  amount  of  compensation  per  year: 
15 million euros). 

The  EAGF  covers  the  expenditure  relating  to  the  different  intervention  mechanisms  and  the 
compensation for operational programmes, i.e. production and marketing planning. These aids are 
specifically  addressed  to  POs.  DG  MARE  handles  the  expenditure  by  way  of  centralised 
management with MS as final beneficiaries, i.e. the Commission reimburses the payments made 
by the MS to their Producers' organisations. The EAGF average expenditure per year amounts to 
12.5 million euros. 

 Organisation of the sector 

In  2010  there  were  237  Producers'  Organisations  (POs)  recognised  in  16  MS.  Spain,  Italy, 
France, Germany and the UK account for 72% of the total number. 13 POs are established in the 
Baltic new MS, i.e. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 

POs  are  a  fundamental  feature  of  the  CMO  since  they  constitute  the  interface  between 
catch/aquaculture  activities  and  the  market.  They  are  set  up  voluntarily  by  fishermen  or  fish 
farmers  to  organise  and  stabilise  the  market  and  to  improve  the  financial  returns  from  their 
production through the following measures:  

•  Planning  of  production  and  marketing  activities:  POs  have  to  submit  to  their  national 
authorities  an  operational  programme  for  the  fishing  year.  This  includes  a  plan  of 
deliveries  from  their  members,  a  marketing  strategy  to  adapt  supply  to  demand,  and 
preventive measures for species that are traditionally difficult to market; 

•  Management  of  intervention  mechanisms,  i.e.  taking  fisheries  products  off  the  market 

when prices fall below a given level in order to stabilise the market; 

•  Plans  to  improve  the  quality  of  products  throughout  all  stages  of  production  and 

marketing; 

•  Possibility  to  extend  PO's  production  and  marketing  rules  to  non-members  operating  in 

the same area of activity. 

55

 
 
Membership is not compulsory, but only PO's members can qualify for financial compensation 
intervention  mechanisms)  and  EFF  (quality 
from  EAGF  (operational  programmes  and 
improvement plans, aids for the creation of POs). 

Recognition is granted by national authorities provided the PO is sufficiently economically active. 
For  catch  POs,  the  economic  criteria  are  based  on  the  size  of  the  area  covered  by  the  PO,  the 
capacity of fishing vessels operating, the frequency and volume of landings. For aquaculture POs, 
the  criteria  take  into  account  the  percentage  of total  production  of  the  species  reared  by  the  PO 
within a production area deemed sufficiently large by the Member State concerned. 

Interbranch  Organisations  (IBOs)  are  made  of  representatives  of  production  (fisheries  or 
aquaculture),  trade  and  processing.  However,  IBOs  cannot  engage  themselves  in  production, 
processing or marketing activities. In 2007 there were 4 IBOs recognised in 3 MS: 2 in Spain (one 
in the catch sector, one in aquaculture), one in France (aquaculture) and one in Italy (both catch 
and aquaculture). 

Their purpose is to promote partnership measures of shared interest for the entire sector such as 
market  surveys  and  research,  development  of  fisheries  products,  quality  initiatives  and  labels, 
promotion  of  environmentally  friendly  production  methods.  Most  of  these  measures  can  be 
financed by the EFF under collective actions and development of new markets and promotional 
campaigns. However, IBOs do not have access to start-up aids. 

The MS, under Commission supervision, grant recognition on the basis of the activities and the 
economic  representativeness  of  the  IBO  in  its  area  of  activity.  Upon  request  from  the  IBO,  the 
Member State concerned may make some of its arrangements binding to non-members operators 
for a limited period. 

The analysis of the operation of POs and IBOs shows the following aspects: 

•  The CMO has actively supported the organisation of fishermen in POs. Nevertheless, the 

efficiency of POs is lower for the aquaculture sector;  

•  POs are not the only collective organisation of producers in the EU. There are other forms 
of organisation in some MS (Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany) with similar missions 
to POs;  

•  The  financial  resources  granted  to  POs  by  the  EAGF  and  the  EFF  were  modest  and  not 
always fully utilised by the MS. POs lack resources to organise the upstream operators in a 
proper manner and to be a relevant tool for the implementation of the CFP; 

•  The effect of operational programmes on matching supply with demand was rather limited. 
They remained a theoretical exercise with some marginal effects and educational value to 
POs;  

•  The recognition of IBOs has been used very seldom. This may be due to the complex and 
often conflicting relations between producers and downstream operators, the low level of 
EU  supply  to  the  processing  industry  and  the  different  concentration  of  upstream  and 
downstream operators. 

56

 
 
 Common marketing standards and consumer information 

The  common  marketing  standards  apply  to  the  first  sale  of  certain  fresh/chilled  fisheries 
products in the EU whatever their origin (EU and imported products). Products must comply with 
the standards in order to be marketed for human consumption within the EU. 

The  purpose  of  the  standards  is  to  facilitate  the  internal  market  by  defining  harmonised 
commercial characteristics of products, and to enable the uniform application of the intervention 
mechanisms by making it possible to establish common prices for each category of product. 

The  standards  cover  47  species  eligible  for  intervention  mechanisms  by  freshness  and  size 
categories. Freshness is adapted to the main group of species (whitefish, bluefish, crustaceans…). 
Marketing  sizes are  generally  expressed by weight without prejudice to the minimum biological 
sizes expressed by length. For those species bearing both sizes, the minimum biological sizes in 
force prevail over the minimum marketing sizes in all circumstances. 

The MS are responsible for checking the conformity of products. 

There are also standards for canned products (sardines, sardine-type products, tuna and bonito). 
They govern trade descriptions, market presentations, covering media and additional ingredients. 
The  standards  for  canned  sardines  had  to  be  amended  in  2003  and  2008  to  bring  the  trade 
descriptions  for  sardines  and  sardine-type  products  in  conformity  with  the  relevant  international 
standard, i.e. the Codex Alimentarius Standard STAN94 and its 2007' revision. 

As  for  consumer  information  provisions,  fisheries  products  falling  within  Chapter  3  of  the 
Combined  Nomenclature  (i.e.  live,  fresh,  chilled,  frozen,  smoked,  dried,  salted,  in  brine, 
crustaceans  and  molluscs)  offered  for  retail  sale  in  the  EU  (either  of  EU  origin  or  imported) 
should indicate the following information through appropriate marking or labelling:  

•  The commercial designation of the species established in each Member State;  

•  The production method (caught at sea, caught in freshwater or farmed);  

•  The catch area:  

(cid:190)  Products caught at sea: the area according to the FAO fishing areas;  

(cid:190)  Products  caught  in  freshwater  or  farmed:  a  reference  to  the  Member  State  or  third 

country of origin of these products.  

These are minimum labelling requirements about the main characteristics of fisheries products, 
which gives flexibility to MS and economic operators to provide additional information tailored to 
their  specific  market  needs.  For  example,  operators  may  provide  a  more  precise  catch  area  as 
additional information to the FAO area.  

There  are  also  provisions  for  the  traceability  of  the  information  throughout all the  stages  of the 
marketing chain. The above labelling requirements together with the scientific name of the species 
should  be  available  by  way  of  labelling,  packaging  or  commercial  documents  including  the 
invoice. The MS have to implement control measures for checking the application of traceability.  

The analysis of the implementation of common marketing standards and consumer information is 
as follows: 

57

 
 
 
•  The marketing standards and the consumer information provisions are relevant in view of 
the diversity of EU markets as they have established a set of "minimum common rules." 
They have also provided wide flexibility by allowing MS and operators to go beyond them 
when they consider it relevant and necessary for the regulation of their specific markets; 

•  The  marketing  standards  have  played  an  important  role  in  measuring  the  quality  of 

products (freshness) and facilitating marketing based on uniform standards; 

•  The minimum marketing sizes have played an indirect role in preventing the marketing of 
juveniles of certain species without minimum biological sizes. Some POs have established 
their  own  standards  or  have  raised  the  regulatory  thresholds  in  order  to  achieve  better 
returns on the market.  

•  The implementation of consumer information provisions is incomplete and depends on the 

different MS as well as the organisation and effectiveness of national controls;  

Prices and intervention mechanism 

The intervention mechanisms are triggered when the market prices for certain fisheries products 
fall  below  a  given  threshold,  i.e.  the  withdrawal  price  or  selling  price.  These  prices  are  fixed 
annually  by  the  Commission  on  the  basis  of  the  guide  prices,  which  in  turn  are  determined 
annually by the Council for 26 fresh and 10 frozen products of EU importance. The Council also 
fixes the Community producer prices for 5 tuna species intended for processing. 

When  market  prices  fall  and  the  intervention  mechanisms  are  triggered,  PO's  members  receive 
financial compensation. There are 4 intervention mechanisms based on a system of prices fixed at 
EU level: 

•  Withdrawals: Products taken permanently off the market for human consumption, whose 
destination is destruction, animal feed (e.g. fish meals), bait or charity. The compensation 
is  a  percentage  of  the  withdrawal  price.  The  percentage  diminishes  as  the  amount  of 
withdrawn fish increases; 

•  Carry-over: Storage and/or processing of products to be reintroduced into the market at a 
later stage. The aid is related to the amount of technical and financial costs of storage and/or 
processing; 

•  Private  storage:  Storage  of  products  frozen  on  board  vessels  intended  for  reintroduction 
into the market. The aid is related to the amount of technical and financial storage costs; 

•  Compensatory  allowance  for  tuna  intended  for  processing:    Compensation  to  tuna 
producers for the absence of tariff protection on imports for the tuna processing industry. 

On the other hand, independent withdrawals and carry-over apply to 20 species for which there 
are substantial price differences in a single national market or between the regions. The relevant 
intervention prices are fixed independently by the POs. 

The implementation of the intervention mechanisms involve the yearly adoption of: 

•  A Council Regulation fixing the guide prices and Community producer prices;  

•  6 Commission Regulations fixing the different intervention parameters and the reference 

prices for those products which benefit from tariff reductions.  

58

 
 
Financial compensation for intervention is financed by the EAGF. 

Evolution FEAGA 2002-2009 by intervention mechanism

6.000.000

5.000.000

4.000.000

3.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total FEAGA by Member State for the period 2002-2009 (Payments)

35.000.000

30.000.000

25.000.000

EUR

20.000.000

15.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

0

Withdrawals

Carry- over

Private storage

Tuna allowance

Operational programmes

FEAGA by Member

t

t

FR ES

IE

PT UK DK DE SU NL

IT

BE EE PL

LV

LT

FI

EL

Country

The analysis of the implementation intervention mechanisms shows that: 

•  The effects of withdrawals and carry-over aid on the stability of the market are weak and 
limited  to  a  few  ports  and  fisheries  of  small  pelagic  species,  in  particular  sardines  in 
Portugal and France; herring in Denmark and Ireland; and mackerel in Spain, France and 
Ireland; 

On  average,  the  quantities  withdrawn  accounted  for  less  than  2%  of  the  production  of 
pelagic species and around 1% of the production of whitefish; 

59

 
 
 
 
•  The compensatory allowance for tuna has lost relevance due to the reduction of EU supply 
to  the  processing  industry  and  the  relocation  of  tuna  canneries.  The  mechanism  is  also 
limited by it administrative complexity including the long delays in payment; 

•  The  distinction  "EU  –  independent"  mechanisms  is  not  relevant  since  there  is  no  real 
"single  EU  market"  for  a  given  species  but  a  diversity  of  national,  regional  or  local 
markets; 

•  The price system is difficult to understand by operator, in particular the calculation method 
of the guide prices. Yet operators wish to maintain the price system with some adaptations 
as a "psychological reference;" 

•  The  guide  prices  have  mainly  played  the  role  of  safety  net  by  limiting  intervention  to 

exceptional circumstances; 

•  The collection and centralisation of economic information through the FIDES notification 

system is a valuable reference for the markets. 

Supply measures for fisheries and aquaculture products 

The  Community  processing  industry  is  increasingly  dependent  on  imports  of  raw  material  from 
third  countries  to  satisfy  their  supply  needs.  The  CMO  has  introduced  permanent  tariffs 
suspensions  or  reductions  for  a  number  of  products  of  interest  for  industry  including  Alaska 
Pollack and cod.  

In  parallel  with  the  adoption  of  the  current  CMO,  the  Council  agreed  the  opening  of  a  multi-
annual regime of autonomous tariff quotas. Duty reductions apply to limited amounts of imports 
of  certain  products  for  which  the  EU  production  is  insufficient.  This  regime  aims  to  ensure 
stability  of  supplies  in  order  to  enhance  the  competitiveness  of  the  processing  industry  while 
respecting the interests of the Community catching sector.  

The current quota regime for the period 2010-2012 focuses on whitefish (cod, hake and substitute 
species),  sensitive  products  (herring  and  tuna  loins)  and  shrimps.  In  order  to  benefit  from  the 
favourable tariff treatment, all quotas are to be used only for the industrial processing of fisheries 
products.  

Imported  products  benefiting  from  tariff  reductions  (suspensions  or  quotas)  must  comply  with 
reference  prices  fixed  at  EU  level.  If  the  declared  customs  value  is  lower  than  the  relevant 
reference  price,  the  quantities  concerned  product  do  not  quality  for  the  tariff  arrangement  in 
question. The reference prices for products qualifying for an EU withdrawal price are equivalent 
to the withdrawal price. 

The analysis of the supply measures is as follows: 

•  The suspensions and tariff quotas have ensured competitive supplies to certain segments of 

the EU processing industry, which could maintain their activities and jobs; 

•  These  measures  have  not  significantly  disrupted  the  balance  and  prices  of  the  main  EU 

markets for fisheries and aquaculture products. 

60

 
 
ANNEXE 3 : 
Points forts – points faibles de l’OCM des Produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture   
(Reg 104/2000) 

Instrument  Perti-
nence 

Effi-
cacité 

Points forts 

Points faibles 

Poids  des  OP  dans  la  flotte  et  la  production  très 
significatif  voire  majoritaire  dans  les  principaux  pays 
producteurs de l'UE. 

Mouvement  de  structuration  en  OP  engagé  dans  la 
plupart  des  nouveaux  EM. 
  Reconnaissance 
communautaire  en  OP  a  conforté  et  légitimé  les 
organisations auprès de leurs adhérents et vis-à-vis des 
acteurs institutionnels et suscité des regroupements en 
associations nationales, régionales et communautaires. 

Représentativité  forte  des  OP  existantes  dans  leur 
secteur. 

Octroi 
/retrait 
reconnaissance 
des OP 

++ 

+ 

Octroi 
/retrait 
reconnaissance 
des OIP 

_ 

_ 

/retrait 
Octroi 
reconnaissance 
des 
OP 
transnationales 

+ 

_ 

Extention 
règles 

de 

+ 

? 

la 

_ 

_ 

Programme 
d’appui  à 
qualité 

 (PAQ) 

Programme 
opérationnel de 
pêche  (POCD) 

+ 

+/- 

Effets  principalement  pédagogiques.    Amélioration  de 
la  qualité  des  Programme  Opérationnel  de  Campagne 
de  Pêche  (POCP)  avec  les  années. 
  Démarches 
collectives  favorables  à  l'innovation,  et  donc  à  la 
compétitivité. 

des 

Fixation 
prix 
d’orientation et 
interventions 

+ 

+ 

Point de référence commun.  Instrument probablement 
le  plus  utilisé  par  les  acteurs  économiques.    Agissent 
plutôt  comme  des  prix  plancher.    Rôle  de  filet  de 
sécurité  et  de  limitation  de  l'intervention  à  des 
situations  exceptionnelles.    Maintien  souhaité  par  les 
acteurs. 

)
P
I
O

t
e
P
O

(

r
u
e
t
c
e
s
u
d
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O

s
r
u
e
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
e
d
s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
O
s
e
d
s
n
o
i
t
c
A

s
n
o
i
t
n
e
v
r
e
t
n
i

t
e
x
i
r
P

+
+
+
+
+

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-

-
-

+

+
+
+

+

+

Pertinence  et  efficacité  moindres  pour 
  OP  pas  seule  voie 
l'aquaculture. 
d'organisation  collective. 
  Statuts, 
représentativités,  missions  et  capacités 
très  diverses  (cid:198)  efficacité 
d'action 
variable des OP. 

Impacts 

Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : 
Durabilité

peu 

Possibilité 
utilisée.  
Reconnaissance  à  posteriori.    Actions 
limitées  par  les  divergences  d'intérêts 
des membres 

Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : 

Le  système  en  place  présente  des 
obstacles 
organisations 
ces 
à 
(fonctionnement  des 
transnationales 
aides  financières  à  la  constitution  par 
exemple). 

Stabilité:
Compétitivité
Revenu :
Emplois : 

est 
Mesure 
Procédure trop complexe. 

très  peu  mobilisée.  

Durabilité

Compétitivité:
Qualité:

Stabilité du 
marché :
Compétitivité
Revenus :
Durabilité

Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :

Dispositif  très  conceptuel  et  complexe 
dans sa mise en œuvre. Peu pertinent au 
regard des attentes de OP, en recherche 
de  soutiens  plus  opérationnels  pour  le 
financement  d'actions  plus  que  de 
planification.    Faible  promotion  faite 
par les EM. 

Souvent uniquement conceptuel, les OP 
manquant  de  moyens  et  d'expertise 
pour les réaliser.  Pas déterminant dans 
l'adaptation  de  l'offre  à  la  demande.  
Pertinence  des  POCP  affectée  par  les 
modalités  de  mise  en  œuvre  :  pas 
d'évaluations  ni  de  consolidations  des 
Plans  pour  les  pêcheries  partagées, 
décalage de calendrier avec l'attribution 
des  quotas,  faibles  concertations  avec 
les  organismes  de  recherche  ou  les 
acteurs  d'aval.    Efficacité  dépendante 
des dynamiques et de la cohérence des 
démarches des producteurs. 

Difficulté  d'établir  des 
référentiels 
pertinents sur une palette de marchés de 
première  vente  caractérisée  par  une 
forte  volatilité  de  l'offre  et  des  prix  et 
l'existence 
fréquente  de  plusieurs 
marchés pour  une même espèce sur un 
même point de vente (marchés du frais/ 
transformation,  niveaux  de  qualité  …).  
Effet limité sur le prix du marché. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Compensation 
financière  pour 
le retrait 

+/- 

+ 

Retraits  adaptés  pour  les  produits  inadaptés  à  la 
transformation,  pour  les  armateurs  sans  unité  de 
congélation  et  pour  approvisionner  l'industrie  de 
l'alimentation animale. 

mesures 
Distinction 
autonomes 
communautaires/mesures 
il  n'existe  pas 
justifiée  car 
pas 
réellement  de  marché  communautaire.  
Effets  socio-économiques  globalement 
marginaux et limités aux quelques ports 
et pêcheries de petits pélagiques qui les 
ont mobilisés.  Concernent quelques % 
armements 
des 
bénéficiaires. 

recettes 

des 

Reports adaptés pour les produits congelés vendus à la 
transformation. 

Aides au report 

++ 

+ 

mesures 
Distinction 
autonomes 
communautaires/mesures 
pas 
il  n'existe  pas 
justifiée  car 
réellement  de  marché  communautaire.  
Effets  socio-économiques  globalement 
limités  aux  quelques  ports  et pêcheries 
de  petits  pélagiques  qui 
les  ont 
mobilisés.  Concernent quelques % des 
recettes des armements bénéficiaires. 

Idem interventions communautaires. 

Idem interventions communautaires. 

Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité

Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité:

Stabilité du 
marché :
Revenus :
Durabilité:

+

+
+

+

+
+

+

+
+

Stabilité :
Revenus :

-
+

Ne  concerne  que  les  produits  congelés 
en mer. 

Pertinence  affaiblie  avec  la  réduction 
de  l'approvisionnement  communautaire 
de  l'industrie  de  la  délocalisation  des 
conserveries.    Efficacité  faible  compte 
tenu  de  sa  complexité  de  mise  en 
œuvre.    "Aubaine"  retardée  du  fait  des 
décalages  importants  entre  le  paiement 
et l'événement déclencheur. 

Outil  approprié  pour  protéger 
importations à des prix anormalement bas. 

l'UE  contre  des 

Concerne peu de produits. 

Compétitivité:

+

l'industrie  de 

A permis d'assurer un approvisionnement compétitif de 
certains  secteurs  de 
transformation 
communautaire  (poissons  blancs  et  saumon).    Effet 
indirect  sur 
la 
transformation.    N'a  pas  perturbé  les  équilibres  et  les 
prix des marchés principaux des produits de la pêche et 
de l'aquaculture communautaire. 

le  maintien  des  emplois  dans 

Homogénéisation des normes.  Grande flexibilité pour 
les  EM  et  les  acteurs  des  filières.    Barrière  à  la 
commercialisation des petites tailles. 

Pas d'effet notable pour l'industrie de la 
conserve.   Diminution de la pertinence 
de  cet  outil  avec  la  libéralisation  des 
échanges.      Suspensions et contingents 
sont parfois redondants. 

Compétitivité:
Emplois:

++
+

Faiblesse  des  contrôles.    Imprécision 
des  catégories  de  fraîcheur.    Méthodes 
de tri peu homogènes.  Coexistence de 
tailles  minimales  de  commercialisation 
et 
de 
débarquement parfois incohérentes. 

tailles  minimales 

de 

Compétitivité
Qualité : 
Durabilité

+
+
+

+

Etiquetage 
obligatoire 

+ 

+/- 

Dynamique  pédagogique  de  long  terme:  limitation  à 
quelques  informations  clés  cohérente  avec  la  faible 
connaissance  générale  des  consommateurs.    Socle 
actuel  pouvant  être  amené  à  évoluer  en  fonction  du 
contexte et des attentes des marchés. 

Efficacité  variable  et  affectée  par  la 
réalité  et  l'ampleur  de  leur  mise  en 
œuvre dans les EM.   Hétérogénéité des 
contrôles. 

Information des 
consommateurs

62

et 

Retrait 
report 
autonome 

+ 

+ 

Aide 
stockage 

au 

_ 

? 

Compensation 
pour le thon 

_ 

_ 

Fixation 
prix 
référence 

de 
de 

+ 

? 

Suspensions  et 
contingents 
tarifaires 

+ 

+ 

de 
Normes 
commercialisat
ion 

+ 

+ 

s
e
g
n
a
h
c
é

s
e
d
e
m
i
g
é
R

t
e
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l
a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
c

e
d
s
e
m
r
o
N

r
u
e
t
a
m
m
o
s
n
o
c

x
u
A

.
o
f
n

i

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXE 4: 
Points de vue des acteurs sur l’Organisation Commune des Marchés (OCM) des produits 
de la pêche et de l’aquaculture et sur la réforme de la Politique de Marché 

Cette annexe constitue une synthèse des avis émis par les différents acteurs à travers les EM 
dans  différents  contextes  et  à  différentes  périodes :  enquête  auprès  des  Organisations  de 
Producteurs (OP) et autorités nationales conduites dans le cadre de l’évaluation de l’OCM et 
consultations dans le cadre du Livre Vert sur la réforme de la PCP (2009).  

1. L’organisation du secteur: le rôle des Organisations de Producteurs (OP) 

Un  fort  consensus  se  dégage  aussi  bien  concernant  le  rôle  central  à  jouer  par  les  OP  dans  la 
mise en œuvre de l’OCM, et plus largement de la PCP, que sur les manques de moyens actuels. 

Les constats 

Les  acteurs  s’accordent  sur  l’impact  plutôt  positif,  des  OP  dans  tous  les  domaines,  même  si 
l’efficacité  de  celles-ci  est  très  variable  et  dépend  de  nombreux  facteurs  (taille  de  l’OP, 
représentativité,  existence  ou  non  de  structures  parallèles,  qualité  des  dirigeants…).  Les 
contextes  historiques  et  réglementaires  de  chaque  EM  influent  également  sur  les  moyens 
d’action et la légitimité des OP. En Allemagne par exemple, les filières étaient déjà structurées 
autour  de  coopératives  qui  ont  souvent  continué  d’exister  parallèlement  aux  OP,  la 
reconnaissance de celles-ci ayant servi à percevoir les subventions pour la flotte. Par ailleurs, 
la  commercialisation  repose  en  grande  partie  sur  des  contrats  passés  avec  l’industrie  et  les 
mesures d’extension des règles sont contraires à la législation nationale. Dans ce cas, les OP 
sont jugées par les acteurs institutionnels comme étant surtout utiles pour la gestion des quotas 
(stabilité  du  marché  et  gestion  de  la  ressource).  En  revanche,  l’exemple  d’OP  transnationale 
pour  les  pêcheurs  de  crevettes  en  permettant  de  nouvelles  coopérations  a  été  jugée  efficace 
pour la structuration du secteur. De même, les OP aquacoles créées en Irlande et au Royaume-
Uni, alors qu’aucune structure préalable n’existait, ont permis de mettre en place de véritables 
stratégies commerciales pour les filières de salmoniculture en soutenant l’orientation celles-ci 
vers  du  bio  et  de  l’écolabel.  La  meilleure  valorisation  des  produits  a  eu  des  impacts 
perceptibles  dans  tous  les  domaines  (marché,  compétitivité,  environnement,  consommateur). 
Le même constat est fait en Pologne, où la filière était très peu structurée avant l’élargissement.  

Les avis sur les POCP convergent également. Selon les autorités nationales, ils peuvent avoir 
constitué  un  outil  de  réflexion  et  de  sensibilisation  concernant  l’adaptation  de  l’offre  à  la 
demande et la gestion de la ressource, comme ils peuvent avoir été traités comme un exercice 
purement formel. Dans tous les cas, il est jugé qu’une planification annuelle de la production 
correspond peu avec la réalité des activités de pêche.  

Les constats sur les mesures d’extension des règles sont plus partagés. Dans la plupart des cas, 
leur mise en œuvre est considérée complexe, pourtant lorsqu’elles ont été utilisées, elles ont été 
considérées par les OP comme un outil efficace. 

Les  programmes  d’appui  à  la  qualité  en  revanche  sont  considérés  par  tous  les  acteurs 
institutionnels et opérationnels comme un exercice trop lourd à mettre en œuvre. 

Le manque de moyens des OP pour intervenir de façon plus visible dans tous les domaines est 
également mentionné par une grande majorité des acteurs, institutionnels ou opérationnels. La 
question  de  la  capacité  des  OP  à  intervenir  dans  la  commercialisation  met  ainsi  en  évidence 
l’écart entre les attentes des différents acteurs et la situation actuelle. En effet, l’enquête auprès 

63

 
 
des  OP,  réalisée  dans  le  cadre  de  l’évaluation  de  l’OCM,  montre  que  le  renforcement  des 
capacités de commercialisation représente la première motivation pour créer une OP ou pour 
adhérer à une OP existante. Pourtant, la difficulté à jouer un véritable rôle dans ce domaine est 
mentionnée par les acteurs institutionnels comme une des principales faiblesses des OP. 

Les propositions 

La  très  grande  majorité  des  acteurs  sont  favorables  au  renforcement  du  rôle  des  OP  et  à  un 
soutien accru. La question du soutien financier, au moins sous la forme d’un allongement du 
financement des POCP est appuyée par les OP et leur représentation au niveau européen, mais 
fait  moins  l’unanimité  des  autorités  nationales.  Les  avis  à  ce  sujet  dépendent  également  du 
degré de structuration et de concentration des filières dans les EM et de la capacité des OP à 
s’autofinancer. 

Le fait d’encourager la création d’OIP et d’OP transnationales ne rencontre pas d’opposition au 
niveau institutionnel, mais au sujet des OIP, les acteurs opérationnels insistent sur la difficulté 
à  regrouper  des  acteurs  aux  intérêts  divergents  au  sein  d’une  même  organisation.  Les 
représentants de l’aquaculture (OP et FEAP) recommandent également le renforcement de ces 
structures dans leur secteur où elles restent peu représentatives. 

La  question  des  critères  de  reconnaissance  est  mentionnée  surtout  par  les  acteurs 
institutionnels,  mais  avec  des  avis  différents  sur  l’orientation  à  donner.  Le  Danemark  ou  les 
Pays Bas mettent en avant l’augmentation de la taille des OP afin d’augmenter leur pouvoir de 
négociation  au  sein  des  filières.  La  volonté  d’homogénéiser  le  rôle  et  le  statut  des  OP  n’est 
proposée que par la France, où on peut observer des différences considérables entre 2 OP du 
même secteur, dans la même zone géographique.  

Synthèse des positions et analyses exprimées sur le rôle des OP par objectif poursuivi 

Aspects positifs 

Aspects négatifs 

à 

des 

►    Les  OP  peuvent  faire  double 
emploi  dans  les  EM  où  celles-ci  se 
superposent 
structures 
préexistantes 
►  La multiplicité des OP de petites 
tailles  dans  certaines  régions  /  EM 
empêche celles-ci d’avoir un impact 
significatif sur le marché 
►    Les  POCP  sont  parfois  perçus 
comme un outil purement formel et 
ne 
pas 
correspondent 
nécessairement à la demande 
► Les mesures d’extension dont la 
mise  en  œuvre  est  généralement 
perçue  comme  contraignante,  sont 
peu utilisées 

é
h
c
r
a
m
u
d
t
n
e
m
e
n
n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
p
p
a
t
e

é
t
i
l
i

b
a
t
S

dans 

(limitation 

►    Structuration  des  filières  et 
donc  à  la  stabilité  du  marché, 
principalement 
les 
régions/EM  où  celles-ci  étaient 
précédemment peu structurées 
►  Adaptation  de  l’offre  à  la 
des 
demande 
débarquements d’espèces posant 
de 
des 
problèmes 
commercialisation) 
la 
valorisation des produits 
►    Les  OP  ont  joué  un  rôle 
significatif  dans  la  gestion  des 
déséquilibres  ponctuels  dus  à  la 
surproduction 
►    Les  mesures  d’extension, 
une  meilleure 
ont 
efficacité  des  OP  en  termes  de 
planification  
►    Retraits  /  reports  servent  de 
filet de sécurité. 

permis 

et 

impact 

Pertinence de 
l’instrument 
►    Les  OP  sont  généralement 
perçues  comme  ayant  un  impact 
positif,  notamment  à  travers  les 
POCP,  Cet 
reste 
cependant limité compte tenu de 
l’importance  des  autres  facteurs 
(poids de l’aval dans les filières, 
Total Allowable Catches (TAC),  
régimes  d’échanges,  conditions 
climatiques, etc..). 
►    Impact  très  variable  des  OP 
d’un EM à l’autre (historique des 
filières,  mise  en  œuvre  de  la 
PCP…) et d’une OP à l’autre.  
►  Les mesures d’extension sont 
considérées très pertinentes dans 
les  EM  où  elles  sont  mises  en 
œuvre  et  ne  sont  pas  un  sujet 
ailleurs. 

Propositions 

la 

  Faciliter 

Sur le fond : 
►    Renforcer  le  rôle  des  OP  dans 
la  gestion  du  marché,  notamment 
au niveau de la première vente 
►    Homogénéiser  le  rôle  et  le 
statut des OP 
►    Améliorer  la  capacité  d’action 
des OP auprès des non-membres 
► 
transmission 
d’information  de  l’aval  vers  les 
pêcheurs 
►    Impliquer  les  OP  dans  les 
systèmes de certification 
Sur la mise en œuvre : 
► 
  Revoir 
reconnaissance des OP 
►    Maintenir  l’aide  aux  POCP, 
éventuellement  sous  condition  de 
publication 
► Faciliter le recours aux mesures 
d’extension 

les  critères  de 

64

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aspects positifs 

Aspects négatifs 

dans 
et 

  Les  OP  qui  se  sont 
► 
la 
diversifiées 
la 
transformation 
commercialisation 
(ex : 
salmoniculture  en  Irlande  et  au 
RU,  pélagiques  au  DK)  ont 
permis 
la 
compétitivité de leur filière 

d’améliorer 

►    L’organisation  préexistante  des 
filières  a  souvent  empêché  les  OP 
de  jouer  un  véritable  rôle  dans  la 
commercialisation, 
notamment 
lorsque  la  première  vente  repose 
principalement sur les criées 
►    pas  d’impact  sur  les  coûts  de 
production 
► 
  Les  OP  n’ont  pas  permis 
d’améliorer  la  transparence  sur  les 
prix entre les différents stades de la 
filière 
►    Les  PAQ  étaient  trop  lourds 
pour être efficaces 

s
e
r
è
i
l
i
f

s
e
d
é
t
i
v
i
t
i
t
é
p
m
o
C

Pertinence de 
l’instrument 
►    Quelques  OP  qui  ont  pu 
jouer  un rôle dans l’aval de leur 
filière en intervenant directement 
dans 
la 
commercialisation,  ont  pu  avoir 
de 
en 
un 
compétitivité. Cependant, les OP 
ne 
pas 
perçues  comme  les  acteurs  les 
plus pertinents dans ce domaine. 

transformation  et 

généralement 

impact 

termes 

sont 

la 

Propositions 

Sur le fond : 
►  accroître le rôle des OP dans la 
maîtrise des coûts de production 

Sur la mise en œuvre : 
►    Clarifier  l’applicabilité  des 
règles de concurrence aux OIP, OP 
transnationales, 
associations 
d’OP 
►    Renforcer  le  rôle  des  OP  par 
une adhésion obligatoire 

et 

le 

revenu 

►  Les OP n’ont pas pour fonction 
des 
d’améliorer 
producteurs 
►    Les  OP  n’ont  souvent  pas  les 
moyens  d’avoir  un  réel  impact  sur 
les  filières  et  par  conséquent  sur 
l’emploi ou le revenu dans celles-ci 
►    D’autres  facteurs  sont  plus 
déterminants  

des 

  ►    Les  OP  ont  pu  contribuer 
r
dans certains cas au maintien ou 
u
e
t
à  l’amélioration  du  revenu  des 
c
e
s
(intervention, 
producteurs 
u
d
filières, 
structuration 
e
l
revalorisation  des  prix 
en 
a
i
c
première  vente,  amélioration  de 
o
s
la compétitivité) 
►  La création de nouvelles OP 
ou  OIP,  ainsi  que  les  stratégies 
de 
d’OP 
existantes  ont  pu  créer  des 
emplois 

diversification 

e
u
q
i
m
o
n
o
c
é

t
e

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S

comme  un 

  Les  POCP  peuvent  être 
exercice 

► 
pratiqués 
purement formel 
►    Certaines  OP  ont  rencontré des 
difficultés  dans  l’application  des 
POCP (Portugal) 
► 
d’éradiquer la pêche illégale 

  Les  OP  n’ont  pas  permis 

►    Les  PAQ  étaient  trop  lourds  à 
mettre en œuvre 

  Les  POCP  peuvent 
► 
permettre  une  gestion  conjointe 
de la ressource et encourager les 
comportements responsables 
►    Les  OP  peuvent  jouer  un 
rôle  lorsqu’elles  détiennent  la 
gestion des quotas 
►    Les  OP  peuvent  jouer  un 
rôle  dans 
la  mise  en  place 
d’écolabels 

►    Certaines  OP  ont  porté  des 
projets  d’amélioration  de 
la 
qualité,  voire  ont  mis  en  place 
des 
de 
normes 
commercialisation  avant  que 
celles-ci 
réglementées 
(Danemark) 

soient 

t
n
e
m
e
n
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
r
u
e
t
a
m
m
o
s
n
o
C

2. Interventions 

impact 
Les  OP  n’ont  qu’un 
les 
l’emploi  ou 
indirect  sur 
leur 
revenus,  qui  dépend  de 
capacité  à 
les 
intervenir  sur 
marchés  et  sur  la  compétitivité 
des filières.  
Les  OP  doivent  également  faire 
face  à  un  paradoxe :  malgré  la 
diminution  constante  du  nombre 
d’emplois,  la  main-d’œuvre  est 
de  plus  en  plus  difficile  à 
trouver.  

►    L’impact  potentiel  des  OP 
sur  l’environnement  varie  selon 
les  EM,  notamment  en  fonction 
du  mode  de  gestion  des  quotas, 
et  en  fonction  des  OP,  de  leur 
volonté  et  de  leur  capacité  à 
intervenir  sur  leur propre filière. 
Par  ailleurs  se  pose  la  question 
du  contrôle  de ses adhérents par 
l’OP  elle-même  et  des  moyens 
de sanctions. 

►    L’impact  des  OP  sur  les 
consommateurs paraît en général 
limité ou marginal. 
►    Les  fonds  structurels  sont 
jugés  plus  pertinents  dans  ce 
domaine.   

la 

collecte 

adhésion 

Instaurer  une 

Sur le fond : 
►  Renforcer le rôle et les moyens 
d’action  des  OP  et  accroître  le 
soutien financier aux OP y compris 
dans le secteur aquacole 
►  Contrôler et évaluer les OP 
►  Concentrer le rôle des OIP sur 
diffusion 
et 
la 
d’information  
►    Encourager  les  coopérations 
(OIP, OP transnationales, etc.) 
Sur la mise en œuvre : 
les  critères  de 
  Revoir 
► 
reconnaissances (taille économique 
minimum) 
► 
obligatoire 
Sur le fond : 
►    Renforcer  le  rôle  des  OP  dans 
la gestion de la ressource  
►    Faire  des  POCP  un  élément 
central  de  la  gestion  durable  de  la 
pêche 
►    Envisager  une  aide  pour  la 
certification  environnementale  des 
OP 
Sur la mise en œuvre : 
► 
les  critères  de 
  Revoir 
reconnaissance  des  OP  (obligation 
de  gestion  du  marché  et  de  la 
ressource) 
Sur le fond 
►  Renforcer le rôle des OP sur la 
qualité 
Sur la mise en œuvre 
► 
  Augmenter 
actions collectives 

l’aide  sur 

les 

Les interventions, qui regroupent le régime des prix et le système des retraits et reports, sont 
globalement considérées comme ayant un impact positif sur la stabilité des prix et le maintien 
du  revenu  des  producteurs.  Cependant  si  le  régime  des  prix  est  largement  soutenu,  les  avis 
divergent sur la pertinence et les effets des retraits et des reports. Le recours aux retraits tend à 

65

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
diminuer au profit des reports, leur part dans les interventions passant de 76% en 2001 à 42% 
en 2007. 

Les constats 

Le  régime  des  prix  communautaires,  et  notamment  le  prix  d’orientation,  est  considéré  par  la 
majorité des acteurs comme une référence commune qui participe à la stabilisation des prix de 
première vente. Par son impact psychologique sur les acteurs, il joue le rôle d’un prix plancher. 
Son mode de calcul est cependant jugé peu transparent et perfectible. 

Bien  qu’ils  représentent  une  faible  part  de  la  production  communautaire  (moins  de  1%  de  la 
valeur  des  espèces  éligibles),  les  retraits  et  les  reports  ont  permis  d’éviter  les  déséquilibres 
d’approvisionnement  et  de  maintenir  les  revenus  des  producteurs.  Ce  constat  est  surtout 
partagé  par  les  acteurs  des  Etats  qui  y  ont  eu  recours  (Danemark)  ou  qui  les  utilisent 
actuellement (France, Espagne, Portugal, Irlande). Les retraits, qui concernent essentiellement 
des pêcheries de petits pélagiques en France et au Portugal. Les avis sur les conséquences des 
reports sur le marché divergent : risque d’effet d’aubaine ou mécanisme de marché à terme.  

Les propositions 

L’évolution  du  système  des  interventions  divise  les  Etats  Membres.  Certains  EM  du  nord  de 
l’Europe ayant faiblement recours aux interventions sont favorables à la suppression totale des 
retraits et reports, voire à la disparition du système de prix. Pour compenser cette suppression, 
la mise en place d’aides directes aux pêcheurs est mentionnée. 

Les  OP,  soutenues  par  les  Etats  utilisant  les  interventions,  sont  pour  leur  maintien  avec  des 
aménagements.  La  suppression  des  retraits  au  profit  des  reports  fait  la  quasi-unanimité. 
Certains  acteurs  souhaitent  une  plus  grande  implication  des  OP,  en  supprimant  les 
interventions  communautaires  et  en  ne  conservant  que  les  interventions  autonomes.  Ils 
souhaitent  également  une  plus  grande  liberté  pour  les  OP  de  choisir  les  espèces  qu’elles 
souhaitent soutenir, ainsi que plus de flexibilité dans l’application des reports. La mise en place 
d’un  système  spécifique  pour  la  gestion  des  crises  a  été  soulevée.  Les  OP  souhaitent  par 
ailleurs une intégration des opérations de stockage privé dans le système des reports ainsi que 
le remplacement de l’indemnité compensatoire thon par du stockage privé.  

L’idée  de  conserver  un  prix  d’orientation  communautaire  rencontre  un  large  consensus. 
Plusieurs  acteurs  souhaitent  toutefois  que  son  mode  de  calcul  soit  revu,  et  devienne  plus 
transparent.  La  suppression  des  prix  spécifiques  pour  les  régions  éloignées  des  marchés  ne 
suscite pas d’opposition. 

Enfin, les représentants des aquaculteurs veulent une adaptation des mesures à leur secteur et 
souhaitent notamment pouvoir recourir à des opérations de report. 

66

 
 
Synthèse des analyses et postions exprimées concernant les interventions 

Aspects négatifs 
►    Les  prix  communautaires 
sont 
jugés  déconnectés  du 
marché.  
►    Les  retraits  et  les  reports 
la 
présentent  n’incitent  pas 
valorisation  de  produits  qui  soit 
adaptés 
du 
marché.  
► 
produits d’élevage 

  Ne  s’applique  pas  aux 

exigences 

aux 

►    Problèmes  de  compétitivité 
de  l’amont  liés  aux  coûts  de 
production 
la 
plutôt 
valorisation des produits. 

qu’à 

Aspects positifs 
►  Contribuent à la stabilisation 
des  prix,  au  moins  grâce  à  leur 
impact  psychologique  comme 
prix-plancher  (référentiel  pour 
l’industrie).  
►    Outil  utile  pour  répondre  à 
des  perturbations  ponctuelles  ou 
réguler  l’approvisionnement  de 
certaines  pêcheries  (  notamment 
petits pélagiques). 

►    Soutien  aux  revenus  des 
pêcheurs.  
►    L’existence  d’un  prix  de 
retrait  est  perçu  comme  un 
garde-fou  pour  l’ensemble  de  la 
filière. 

Pertinence de l’instrument 
►    Le  système  d’intervention 
est  globalement  perçu  comme 
un élément stabilisateur. 
►      Le  système  est  perçu 
élément 
un 
comme 
d’information  très  utile  pour 
l’ensemble de la filière.  
  Les  retraits  et  reports 
► 
les 
permettent  de 
dans 
déséquilibres 
mais 
l’approvisionnement, 
limité 
cas 
à 
particuliers (espèces, périodes, 
ports).  
►    Le  système  d’intervention 
n’est  pas  jugé  pertinent  pour 
améliorer  la  compétitivité  de 
la  filière,  car  il  ne  concerne 
pas  les  causes  du  manque  de 
compétitivité du secteur. 

quelques 

limiter 

Propositions 

►  Maintien  
►    Adaptation  pour  coller  aux 
réalités  des  marchés  et  éviter  le 
gaspillage.  
►  Extension des aides au retrait 
pour les produits de l’aquaculture 

►  Maintien  
►  Adaptation pour tenir compte 
des attentes des acheteurs. 

►  Pertinent pour maintenir le 
revenu  des  producteurs  dans 
quelques cas particuliers 
►    Permet  d’empêcher  une 
forte  baisse  des  prix  mais 
l’impact  est  cependant  limité 
tenu  de  contraintes 
compte 
existantes 
et 
(législatives 
financières) 

►  Maintien  
►    Adaptation  pour  garantir  un 
prix  minima  et  assurer  un  niveau 
de revenu. 
►    Augmentation  des  moyens 
financiers (FEAGA). 
►    Assouplissement  des  règles 
existantes (plafonds). 

►  Neutre   
► 
rejetées en mer 

  Impact  sur  les  captures 

►    Le  système  des  retraits  et 
reports  peut  conduire  à  une 
mauvaise gestion des ressources. 

régime 
n’est 

des 
► 
Le 
interventions 
pas 
pertinent  pour  mettre  en  place 
une  gestion  durable  des 
ressources. 

►    Adaptation  pour  coller  aux 
réalités  des  marchés  et  éviter  le 
gaspillage. 

u
d
t
n
e
m
e
n
n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
p
p
a
t
e

é
t
i
l
i
b
a
t
S

s
e
d
é
t
i
v
i
t
i
t
é
p
m
o
C

é
h
c
r
a
m

s
e
r
è
i
l
i
f

e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S

t
e

e
u
q
i
m
o
n
o
c
é

r
u
e
t
c
e
s
u
d
e
l
a
i
c
o
s

t
n
e
m
e
n
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

  ► 

  Ecarte 

les  produits  de 
mauvaise  qualité,  non  éligibles 
aux interventions. 

)
s
e
m
r
o
n

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

,
é
t
i
l
a
u
Q

►    Globalement  pas  d’impact 
sur la qualité des produits. 

►  Adaptation pour tenir compte 
des attentes des acheteurs. 

3. Information aux consommateurs 

L’obligation de fournir un minimum d’information aux consommateurs n’est remise en cause 
par aucun acteur. Son utilité apparaît aussi pour les transactions au sein de la filière. Il semble 
également  acquis  que  le  système  peut  être  amélioré,  que  ce  soit  pour  le  contenu  des 
informations ou pour le respect de son application. 

Les constats 

L’ensemble  des  acteurs  s’accorde  sur  le  manque  de  précision  ou  de  pertinence  des 
informations  apportées  au  consommateur.  L’indication  du  mode  de  production  (pêche  ou 
aquaculture) semble être l’élément le plus pertinent d’information. Au contraire, concernant la 
provenance,  l’indication  de  la  zone  FAO  apparait  trop  imprécise  pour  avoir  fournir  une 
information  adéquate  et  utile  au  consommateur.  Les  informations  minimales  constituent 
67

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
également  un  moyen  pour  le  secteur  de  la  transformation  et  la  distribution  de  contrôler 
l’origine  et  la  provenance  de  leur  matière  première.  La  dénomination  commerciale  n’est  pas 
remise en cause mais elle est parfois perçue comme complexe en raison du nombre élevé de 
dénominations commerciales définies par les EM.  

Plusieurs  acteurs,  notamment  ceux  où  un  système  plus  contraignant  existait  déjà  (Espagne), 
soulignent que  les informations minimales ne permettent pas de différencier les produits. De 
plus,  les  consommateurs  sont  sensibles  à  d’autres  critères  que  le  mode  de  production  ou  la 
provenance  des  produits :  campagnes  menées  par  des  ONG,  labellisation  des  produits  (Label 
Rouge, bio, écolabels) ou présence d’une marque commerciale. 

Les propositions 

Faire référence à des zones de pêche plus précises fait l’unanimité, par exemple en se référant 
aux  mers  locales  (Baltique,  mer  du  Nord,  Manche…).  Plusieurs  acteurs  s’accordent  sur  la 
nécessité  d’une  base  de  données  communautaire  des  dénominations  commerciales,  basée  sur 
les noms scientifiques récents des espèces. 

Quelques pays souhaitent renforcer l’information et la traçabilité des produits en indiquent par 
exemple  la  date  de  capture,  le  lieu  de  débarquement,  la  nationalité  du  bateau,  et  renforcer  la 
distinction  entre  les  produits  frais  et  les  produits  décongelés ;  mais  également  étendre 
l’obligation  d’information  à  la  restauration,  notamment  pour  la  distinction  entre  sauvage  et 
élevage. 

Les  représentants  des  OP  et  des  aquaculteurs  soutiennent  la  mise  en  place  d’un  écolabel 
communautaire ou de critères minimum de contrôles ainsi que des signes de qualité régionaux. 

l’information  des  consommateurs  pourrait  être  renforcée  par  des  campagnes 
Enfin, 
communautaires  afin  d’améliorer  l’image  du  secteur  et  des  produits,  et  de  promouvoir  la 
consommation de poisson. 

Synthèse des analyses et positions exprimées concernant les informations aux consommateurs 

Aspects positifs 

Aspects négatifs 

Pertinence de l’instrument 

Propositions 

t
n
e
m
e
n
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n

i

,
é
t
i
l
a
u
Q

)
s
e
m
r
o
n

►    Pertinence  des  informations 
relatives  au  mode  de  production 
et à la zone d’origine 

►  Imprécisions et difficultés de 
compréhension  des  informations 
relatives  au  mode  de  production 
et à la zone d’origine 

  L’étiquetage  contribue  à 
la 
des 

►    Distinction  sauvage/élevage 
pertinente  
► 
l’amélioration 
connaissance 
consommateurs  
►    Permet  un  meilleur  contrôle 
des matières premières. 

de 

pour 

►    Zones  FAO  n’ont  pas  de 
significations 
les 
consommateurs 
►    L’étiquetage  ne  renseigne 
pas  sur  les  qualités  intrinsèques 
des produits. 
►  L’information est inexistante 
en restauration. 
►  La traçabilité est insuffisante 
et 
informations  parfois 
les 
incorrectes. 

►    Utile    pour  instaurer  une 
consommation responsable des 
produits  de  la  pêche  et  de 
l’aquaculture 
compris 
biologique). 

(y 

►  Globalement l’information 
fournie renseigne peu.  
►    Les  labels  (écolabel,  bio, 
signes  de  qualité)  constituent 
un  critère  plus  important  dans 
le  choix  des  consommateurs. 
► 
légales 
fournissent  un  minimum  de 
traçabilité au sein de la filière. 

  Les  mentions 

la 

  Promouvoir  des  critères 

► 
minimum pour les écolabels  
►  Campagnes d’information pour  
promouvoir 
consommation 
responsable de  poisson. 
►    Renforcer  la  lutte  contre  la 
pêche IUU (certification) 
►    Développer  des  informations 
plus  précises  (zone  de  pêche,  de 
débarquement,  date  de  capture, 
origine du bateau) et plus robustes. 
►  Renforcer les contrôles  
►  Appliquer à la restauration 
►    Campagnes  d’information  et 
promouvoir  la  consommation  de 
poisson 
►    Soutenir  des  initiatives  pour 
des labels de qualité régionaux 

4. Normes de commercialisation 

Les  normes  de  commercialisation  sont  considérées  par  la  majorité  des  acteurs  comme  une 
68

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
référence pour évaluer la qualité des produits, et donc comme un socle minimum à conserver. 
Leur impact réel sur cette qualité est lui moins unanime. 

Les constats 

Les OP et la plupart des autorités nationales considèrent que les normes de commercialisation 
ont permis d’établir un référentiel commun pour apprécier la qualité des produits. De ce fait, 
elles ont permis d’homogénéiser l’offre et limité les distorsions sur le marché intérieur. 

Nombreux EM et opérateurs considèrent que les normes ont contribué à une amélioration du 
calibrage et de la qualité générale de la matière première. Certains EM contestent la pertinence 
des critères retenus, qui sont utilisés pour les retraits, mais ne correspondent pas aux besoins de 
l’aval.  

Le point faible le plus souvent mentionné est l’incohérence qui peut exister entre les tailles de 
commercialisation  et  les  tailles  minimales  de  débarquement.  Les  premières  peuvent  en  effet 
être exprimées en poids, alors que les secondes le sont en longueur, et que ces deux données ne 
sont pas toujours corrélées. 

Les propositions 

L’harmonisation des tailles de débarquement et des tailles commerciales fait consensus. 

Par ailleurs certains EM souhaitent une classification de fraicheur plus précise, la majorité des 
produits étant classés en A 

Le renforcement des contrôles pour s’assurer de l’application des règles existantes est souvent 
mentionné. 

Synthèse des analyses et positions exprimées concernant les normes de commercialisation 

Aspects positifs 
 ►  Référence commune  

►  Aucun impact sur les prix. 

Aspects négatifs 

Pertinence de l’instrument 

Propositions 

►    Homogénéisation  de  l’offre 
sur le marché intérieur. 

►    Ne  constituent  pas  un  outil 
marketing. 

►    Impact  positif  sur  la  qualité 
et le calibrage des produits.  

►    Application  pas  toujours 
rigoureuse. 

sur 

Impact  positif 

le 
► 
marché. Elles sont considérées 
comme 
référence 
une 
commune  d’évaluation  de  la 
qualité des produits. 

►  Pas de propositions. 

►    Appliquer  les  normes  de 
commercialisation  à 
les 
produits 

tous 

t
e

é
t
i
l
i
b
a
t
S

n
e
m
e
n
n
o
i
s
i
v
o
r
p
p
a

é
h
c
r
a
m
u
d
t

i
t
i
t
é
p
m
o
C

s
e
d
é
t
i
v

s
e
r
è
i
l
i
f

e
m
e
n
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

t
n

►    Tailles  commerciales  dans 
quelques  cas  incohérentes  avec 
de 
tailles  minimales 
les 
débarquement 

►  Pas un outil d’amélioration 
de la durabilité de la pêche.  

les 

  Harmoniser 

► 
tailles 
minimales  de  commercialisation 
tailles  minimales  de 
les 
avec 
débarquement. 

69

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
►    Facteur  d’homogénéisation 
de l’offre 

►    Facteur  d’amélioration  de  la 
qualité globale des produits. 

)
s
e
m
r
o
n

,

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

,
é
t
i
l
a
u
Q

►  Contrôles insuffisants. 

►  Rôle positif sur la qualité. 

►  Contrôles plus poussés. 

retenus 

►  Critères 
sont 
pertinents  pour  le  système  de 
retraits  que  pour  l’aval  de  la 
filière. 

  Référence 

► 
d’évaluation de cette qualité. 

commune 

►    Fixer  des  normes  pour  les 
produits d’aquaculture. 

  Utiliser 

► 
(Quality 
évaluer la fraîcheur. 

le  système  QIM 
Index  Method)  pour 

  Augmenter  le  nombre  de 

► 
catégories. 

Régime d’échange avec les pays tiers 

Dans  leurs  commentaires,  nombreux  acteurs  ne  font  pas  la  différence  entre  les  mesures 
tarifaires  autonomes  qui  relèvent  de  la  Politique  de  Marché  (contingents  et  suspensions),  et 
celles relevant de la Politique Commerciale, (négociations bilatérales, multilatérales, mesures 
de sauvegarde...).   

L’ensemble  des  acteurs  s’accorde  sur  l’utilité  des  contingents  et  des  suspensions  autonomes 
pour l’approvisionnement de l’industrie de transformation à prix compétitifs. Les représentants 
des  industries  de  transformations  et  les  autorités  des  Etats  où  ils  sont  le  plus  présents 
considèrent  cependant  que  les  mesures  sont  insuffisantes,  alors  que  les  représentants  des 
producteurs restent attentifs aux risques de concurrence accrue.  

Les constats 

La  suppression  des  droits  douanes  par  voie  de  contingents  et  des  suspensions  autonomes  a 
permis l’approvisionnement des industries de transformations en matière première bon marché, 
et a de ce fait favorisé leur compétitivité et la consolidation des emplois qui lui sont associés. 
Si ce constat est partagé par tous, les transformateurs et les Etats Membres où cette industrie 
est  importante  regrettent  que  les  contingents  soient  trop  restreints  et  ne  couvrent  pas 
l’ensemble des besoins d’approvisionnement en volume et espèces. D’autres EM craignent que 
ces importations exempts de droits de douanes n’aient un impact défavorable sur la production 
communautaires. De ce point de vue, les prix de référence, bien qu’ils soient peu utilisés, sont 
perçus comme une protection contre le risque de prix anormalement bas. 

Le  secteur  aquacole  et  les  EM  concernés  considèrent  que  les  mesures  de  sauvegarde  ont 
contribué  à  maintenir  la  production  européenne.  Les  représentants  des  aquaculteurs 
souhaiteraient  voir  ces  mesures  appliquées  plus  régulièrement.  D’une  manière  générale,  la 
mise  en  œuvre  des  ces  mesures  est  jugée  trop  lourde  et  trop  lente  pour  pouvoir  réagir 
efficacement aux changements du marché. 

Les propositions 

Les opinions divergent sur l’évolution souhaitable des instruments tarifaires autonomes dans la 
politique de marché des produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture. Alors que certains EM sont 
favorables  à  une  large  ouverture  tarifaire  pour  tous  les  produits,  les  producteurs  et  les 
transformateurs  soutiennent  une  utilisation  différenciés  des  instruments  tarifaires  autonomes 
suivant  les  segments,  espèces  et  besoins  du  marché.  Enfin  certains  EM  ont  indiqué  que  les 
produits  importés  sans  droits  de  douanes  devraient  répondre  aux  mêmes  exigences  que  la 
production communautaire, en termes de qualité sanitaire, de conditions sociales et de respect 
de la durabilité de la ressource. 

70

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: 
Presentation and comparison of the CMO for Fruit and Vegetables and the CMO for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Fruit and Vegetables (F&V) and Fisheries and Aquaculture (F&A) products are characterised 
by common features and challenges: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A significant number of products and a wide variety of production modes  

Importance of fresh thus perishable products 

A large number of producers organisations with great variations between MS 

Concentration of retails 

Exposure to price crises 

Positive image of the products 

Both F&V and F&A markets are regulated within a Common Market Organisation but 
with  very  different  financial  support:  some  800  million  euros  (excluding  direct  aid)  for 
F&V against some 15 million euros for F&A CMO 

The reform of F&V CMO in 2007 addressed the following issues 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Concentration of the retailers and at same time insufficient grouping of supply 

Aid for products intended for processing not consistent with reformed CAP 

The  need  for  an  efficient  market  crises  management  in  the  F&V  sector,  although 

limited 

Environmental concerns. Need to improve the current commitments 

Need for administrative and management “Simplification” 

Objectives and structure of the 2007 F&V sector CMO reform 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To improve EU F&V sector competitiveness and market orientation or, in other words, 
to contribute to achieving sustainable production that is competitive both on internal and 
external markets. 

To reduce fluctuations in F&V producers' income resulting from crises 

To increase consumption of F&V in the EU 

To continue the efforts made by the sector to maintain and protect the environment 

To simplify and where possible reduce the administrative burden for all concerned. 

71

 
 
 
 
The  2007  reform  provides  for  new  measures  set  out  to  encourage  growers  to  join  Producer 
Organisations  and  POs  are  offered  a  wider  range  of  tools  for  crisis  management.  The  F&V 
sector  is  integrated  into  the  SPS.  EU  funding  for  promotion  and  organic  production  is 
increased,  and  a  minimum  level  of  environmental  spending  is  required.  Export  subsidies  for 
F&V are abolished. In detail: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Producer  Organisations  (POs):  POs  gain  greater  flexibility  and  their  rules  have  been 
simplified There is additional support (60 percent Community co-financing rather than 50 
percent) in areas where production covered by POs is less than 20 %, and, in particular, in 
the  new  MS,  to  encourage  the  creation  of  POs.  MS  and  POs  develop  Operational 
Programmes based on a national strategy. 

Crisis  Management:  this  is  organised  through  POs  (50  percent  financed  by  the 
Community  budget).  Tools  include  green  harvesting/non-harvesting,  promotion  and 
communication tools in times of crisis, training, harvest insurance, help in securing bank 
loans  and  financing  of  the  administrative  costs  of  setting  up  mutual  funds.  Withdrawals 
can  be  carried  out  by  POs  with  50  %  co-financing.  Withdrawals  for  free  distribution  to 
schools etc is 100 % paid by the Community. Community aid to POs remains limited to 4.1 
%  of  the  total  value  of  marketed  produce,  but  this  may  rise  to  4.6  %  provided  that  the 
excess is used only for crisis prevention and management.  

Inclusion  of  F&V  in  the  Single  Payment  Scheme  (SPS):  land  covered  by  fruit  and 
vegetables has become eligible for payment entitlements under the decoupled aid scheme 
which applies in other farm sectors. All existing support for processed F&V is decoupled 
and the national budgetary ceilings for the SPS is increased. The total amount transferred 
to the SPS is around 800 million euros.  

Environmental measures: The inclusion of fruit and vegetables in the SPS means that 
Cross Compliance is compulsory for those farmers receiving direct payments. In addition, 
POs  must  devote  at  least  10  %  of  expenditure  in  each  Operational  Program  to 
environmental  measures.  There  is  a  60  %  Community  co-financing  rate  for  organic 
production in each Operational Program. 

• 

Encouraging  greater  consumption:  POs  are  allowed  to  include  promotion  of  F&V 

consumption in their operational programs40.  

40 Additional 6 million euros for the promotion of F&V targeted at children in educational establishments and 8 
million euros budget for free distribution of F&V to schools, hospitals and charitable bodies, which will be 

72

 
 
                                                 
100  percent  financed  by  the  Community  up  to  a  limit  of  5  percent  of  the  quantity  marketed  by  a  PO.  The 
Council asked the Commission to carry out a feasibility study into the creation of a school fruit and vegetable 
scheme. 

73

 
 
                                                                                                                                                           
Evolution  of  objectives  of  the  regime  governing  both  sectors  (F&V  and  F&A)  since  the 
1970s  

Fruits and &Vegetables CMO 

Fishery and aquaculture CMO 

Council Regulation (EEC) 1035/72 
 (repealed by Council Regulation 2200/96) 
- 
- 

stabilize market prices  
avoid the destruction of withdrawn products 

Council Regulation (EC) 2200/96  
(amended by Council Regulation 2699/00) 
Objectives, besides 1035/72 objectives: 
- 
- 

limit quantities withdrawn from the market 
environmental protection during destruction of 
withdrawn products 

Council Regulation (EC) 2699/00 
Objectives, besides 2200/96 objectives: 
-  Avoid withdrawal of citrus fruit that could be 

processed 

1970s 
Council Regulation (EEC) 2142/70  
- 
- 
- 

apply common marketing standards;  
create producers’ organisations (POs);  
establish a price support system based on intervention 
mechanisms (withdrawal prices, carry-over aid and aid for 
private storage) or compensation (tuna destined for 
canning);  
set up a system of exchanges with non-EU countries 

- 
1990s 
Council Regulation (EC) 104/00  
- 
- 
- 
- 

price stability;  
optimal balance between supply and demand;  
strengthened competitiveness;  
ensure the supply of the EU processing industry while 
respecting the interest of EU producers;  

proper information to the consumer.  

Objectives after Agenda 2000 

Council Regulation (EC) 1182/2007  
- 

Strengthen market orientation and the 
competitiveness of the sector  
Reduce producer earnings fluctuations caused by 
market crises  
Increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables in 
the European Union  
Sustain the efforts of farmers in protecting the 
environment  
Simplify and reduce administrative costs  

- 

- 

- 

- 

Ongoing discussions 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

Reinforced market incentives to support sustainable 
production  
Improve market position of EU production 
Better connect the EU production to the EU Market 
Enhance market potential f EU products 
Support better governance and simplification 

Comparison of current market intervention instruments in the F&V and F&A sectors 

Fruits and &Vegetables CMO 

Fisheries & Aquaculture CMO 

Export 
Refunds 

Aids for 
processing  

- 

- 

- 

Bridging of the price between the EU price 
level and the world market price level when 
the minimum price level, set by the 
European Union is higher than the world 
price for the same product  
Community production aid scheme for 
products intended for processing and which 
meet  minimum quality requirements 
The aid is granted to producer Organisations 
which conclude contracts with processors 
approved by the MS  

Storage 
aids 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

- 

Carry over operation (independent and not 
independent) for the processing of the product 
before it returns to the market  

-  Direct aid to producers of tuna delivered to the 
processing industry if the market prices fall 

- 

- 

Carry over operation (independent and not 
independent) for the storage of the product before it 
returns to the market  
Private storage aid (storage then return to the 
market) 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: 
EU market developments and trends for fisheries and aquaculture products 

The  EU  is  the  first  market  in  the  world  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  in  value  (55 
billion  euros  representing  12  millions  tons).  The  EU  market  increased  by  nearly  two  million 
tonnes  between  1999  and  2007  where  supply,  trade  and  market  structures  and  consumption 
preferences have dramatically changed41. The trends may be summarised as follows: 

(cid:190)  EU deficit in fisheries and aquaculture products increases: 

o  EU self-sufficiency rate fell from 57% to 35% in the same period; 

o  EU fisheries production steadily decreased during ten years (-31% between 1996 and 
2008,  which  represents  a  loss  of  more  than  2  million  tonnes42);  while  EU 
aquaculture production has not grown to an appreciable extent. 

(cid:190)  Retail concentration increased 

o  Supermarkets  have  a  majority  share  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  product  retail 
distribution that continues to grow in all major EU markets. Nowadays, this growth 
essentially  comes  from  distribution  of  fresh  products,  given  that  large  retail  chain 
almost  totally  dominate  frozen  and  canned  segments.  Mass-market  distribution  of 
fresh  fish  is  less  significant  in  Southern  European  countries  than  in  the  Northern 
ones43 where it highly developed.  

(cid:190)  Variability and complexity of first sale prices and price formation  

o  First  sale  prices  of  fresh  fish  are  generally  characterised  by  significant  volatility. 
Several channels often co-exist to supply the various types of distribution, retail and 
HORECA, with specific pricing mechanisms and profit margins at each intermediary 
level.  

o  Prices  of  imported  products  appear  to  be  much  more  stable  compare  to  EU 
production,  notably  since  they  are  mainly  linked  to  major  frozen  commodities 
coming from aquaculture or major fisheries (i.e. salmon, shrimp).  

o  Profitability  at  various  stages  of  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  product  chain  is 

overall lower than that of other food supply chains.  

(cid:190)  Demand in terms of fish species has evolved over recent years:  

o  There  has  been  a  reduction  of  EU  production  of  certain  main  species  of  fish  (cod, 
plaice,  haddock,  redfish,  etc),  at  the  same  time  supplies  of  sea  bass  and  sea  bream 
farmed in Southern Europe have increased. 

41 

study 
products 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/study_evaluation_market/index_en.htm  

and  marketing 

aquaculture 

fisheries 

supply 

and 

on 

in 

the  EU: 

42   It primarily affects species that are subject to quotas. For over a million tonnes it is linked to the reduction in 
Denmark's  production,  essentially  for  non-human  uses. The  demersal  fish  group  has  fallen  more  sharply  (-
36%) than that of pelagic fish (-21%). 

43 Spain is the major market where supermarkets have a lower market share in selling fish products (55% in 2006, 

against 67% in Italy, 77% in Germany, 78% in France and 83% in the United Kingdom). 

75

 
 
                                                 
o  A strong increase in demand for salmon and tropical prawns is evident; at the same 
time there has been a decreased demand for some traditional products (e.g. herring, 
plaice). 

o 

Increase in demand for in new MS from a low base; 

o  Changes  in  qualitative  and  economic  expectations  of  consumers  (more  fish  fillets 
and  less  whole  fish,  ready  to  eat  and  processed  food,  new  consumers  for  new 
products without strong fishy taste and smell and at a low price); 

o  Requirements in terms of volume and availability (by processors and retailers). 

(cid:190)  EU  consumption  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  is  far  from  being  a 

homogenous market44 but it is  growing and evolving 

o  The  majority  of  markets  have  encountered  a  growth  in  consumption  in  the  last 
decade. This trend is particularly strong in traditional markets such as France where 
an  increase  of  5kg/year/inhabitant  has  occurred  in  the  last  ten  years.  Likewise  in 
several Central and Eastern European MS, there has been a noticeable increase in the 
level of FAP consumption. 

o  EU markets are open to the arrival of new fish species, many of them substituting for 
traditional species which have become scarce. Examples of this are Alaska Pollock 
in the 80s, Nile perch from Lake Victoria in the 90s, Pangasius from Vietnam since 
the  mid  2000s.  There  is  a  tendency  towards  homogenisation  and  harmonisation 
within  the  EU  with  the  spread  of  distribution  networks  linked  to  the  major 
supermarkets. 

o  Growth in EU consumption is expected at a level of about +0.5% per year between 
now  and  2030.  A  strong  growth  in  demand  is  expected  for  prepared  products, 
shellfish  and  fillets.  On  this  assumption,  the  EU  demand  is  likely  to  grow  to 
1,500,000 tonnes by 2030 supplied to a very large extent by imports. Dependence on 
white  fish  imports  has  already  reached  90%,  it  is  above  80%  for  salmon,  and  is 
generally high for all frozen and smoked products, whereas it represents only 30% 
for small pelagic species. 

(cid:190)  New consumption habits  

o  Fresh  fish  continues  to  dominate  in  the  majority  of  MS,  particularly  in  Southern 
European countries (Spain, France and Italy) where more than 50% of fisheries and 
aquaculture products are consumed in this form. There is an interesting increase in 
the consumption of fresh fish in Eastern European countries.  

o 

Innovations  in  terms  of  presentation  and  packaging  (fish  or  seafood  packaged  in  a 
protective  atmosphere)  help  to  improve  mass-market  availability.  Deep-frozen 
products attract growing and consistent interest across almost all markets. Ready to 
eat meals, breaded fish and fillets are all growth drivers. The canned and pickled fish 
market  segment  seems  to  have  reached  maturity,  even  showing  signs  of  a  slight 
decline  in  several  MS.  These  staples  have  a  very  high  penetration  rates  and  are 
guaranteed  a  minimum  market  share  in  the  long-term,  in  spite  of  the  greater 
dynamism  of  other  segments.  The  smoked  fish  segment,  led  by  salmon,  is 

44  Spain,  France  and  Italy  alone  make  up  62%  of  expenditures.  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  account,  on 
average,  for  4%  of  food  expenditure  across  EU27,  but  are  above  5%  in  France,  8%  in  Spain  and  10%  in 
Portugal.  On  average,  European  consumers  get  15%  of  their  protein  intake  from  fisheries  and  aquaculture 
products. 

76

 
 
                                                 
experiencing  strong  growth  and  still  retains  an  image  of  luxury  or  regarded  as  a 
festive product whilst offering generally affordable price levels. Demand for dried, 
salted cod remains strong in the Iberian Peninsula but is declining in Italy. 

o  The  out-of-home  catering  sector  (HORECA)  has  encountered  strong  growth  in 
recent years in the majority of MS due to lifestyle changes. The HORECA sector has 
become a significant purchaser and also an important player in terms of provision of 
information to consumers. Also, HORECA has developed new outlets such as sushi 
bars. 

(cid:190)  Increased consumers expectations 

The demand for fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU is influenced by a combination of 
economic, health and marketing factors. 

o  Price  and  purchasing  power  are  the  most  important  elements  related  to  fish 
consumption.  Fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  are  often  considered  as  relatively 
expensive  products  and  demand  for  them  is  elastic,  according  to  price  and 
purchasing power. 

o  Health and nutritional values of fish are important criteria for consumers throughout 
the EU. The current trend for consuming healthy and natural products also benefits 
the fish sector and there is an increased interest in the essential fatty acids or omega-
s for which fish is the best preformed source.  

o  Quality in the broadest sense (organoleptic features, freshness and safety guarantees) 
is  also  taken  into  consideration  by  European  consumers  when  purchasing  fisheries 
and aquaculture products.  

o  Respect  for  environmental  impact  and  product  provenance  is  valued  in  certain 

countries, especially in Northern Europe. 

77

 
 
 
ANNEX 7: 
Overview of the EU market for sustainable fishing certified products 

Precise data on production and consumption of sustainable fishing certified products are often 
lacking. Most of the analysis published by international organisations (FAO45, OECD46, EC47), 
national bodies (UK, FR48…) or NGOs (Marine Stewardship Council - MSC, Friend of the Sea, 
Seafood  Choices  Alliances  …)  are  based  on  qualitative  work  on  operators  and  consumers’ 
perception  and  on  broad  quantitative  data  on  certified  volumes.  Nevertheless,  some 
quantitative  economic  analysis  can  be  conducted  on  the  basis  of  consultations  held  by 
Commission services and existing studies49.  

Production and supply  

DG MARE estimates that some 10% of the world’s fisheries capture for human consumption is 
certified or under assessment, which can be seen as a dramatic market development in just ten 
years.  Certified  fisheries  are  so  far  primarily  located  in  US  waters  (Alaskan  salmon  and 
Pollock: more than 1.5 million tonnes), Norway (herring and mackerel: over 1 million tonnes) 
and  New  Zealand  (Hoki:  250,000  tonnes)  Other  large  fisheries  are  now  involved  in 
certification programmes, (Alaskan Pollock from Russian waters, pelagic fish from Danish or 
Peruvian waters) representing potentially millions of tonnes of certified fisheries products. 

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is the leading certification scheme at world level. It 
indicates that in 2009 four million tons of capture fisheries for human consumption50 are MSC 
certified for a retail value of US$ 1.5 billion. Some three million tons of fish are undergoing 
full assessment against the MSC scheme for sustainable fishing. The percentage of total global 
catch  of  all  fish  in  the  MSC  programme  is  7.5%51.  The  number  of  countries  where  MSC-
labelled  products  are  available  doubled  between  2007  and  2009  (59)  and  the  number  of 
products (2,800) increased fourfold. Friend of the Sea (FoS), indicates that it has assessed more 
than 10 million tonnes of wild-catch and 500 thousand tonnes of farmed products. FoS certifies 
fishmeal.  Eighty  %  of  FoS  assessed  products  (eight  million  tonnes)  comes  solely  from 
Peruvian anchovies, entirely used for fishmeal. Other scheme operators do not published data 

45  FAO  –  Globefish  Research  Programme  “Ecolabels  and  marine  capture  fisheries:  Current  practice  and 

emerging issues” Volume 91 - April 2008 : http://www.globefish.org/dynamisk.php4?id=4516 

46 http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_33901_42026282_1_1_1_37401,00.html 
47  Study  on  the  supply  and  marketing  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  in  the  European  Union  (2009) 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/fap_part2_fr.pdf 

48 Ofimer - Étude de faisabilité de la mise en place d’un écolabel dans la filière des produits de la pêche maritime : 

http://www.ofimer.fr/Pages/Ofimer/Publications.html 

49  FAO  –  Globefish  Research  Programme  “Ecolabels  and  marine  capture  fisheries:  Current  practice  and 

emerging issues” Volume 91 - April 2008 : http://www.globefish.org/dynamisk.php4?id=4516 

Ofimer - Étude de faisabilité de la mise en place d’un écolabel dans la filière des produits de la pêche maritime : 

http://www.ofimer.fr/Pages/Ofimer/Publications.html 

OECD/FAO  Round  Table  on  Eco-Labelling  and  Certification  in  the  Fisheries  Sector:  The  Economics  of 
Standards-Certification-Quality  Signalling  in  Fisheries  (Julie  A.  Caswell  -University  of  Massachusetts 
Amherst and Sven M. Anders - University of Alberta); The Consumer Perception (Nielsen)  

http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_33901_43351152_1_1_1_37401,00.html  
http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,en_2649_33901_42026282_1_1_1_37401,00.html 
50 MSC does not yet certify fishmeal 
51 excluding fisheries undergoing confidential pre assessment: some 20 to 30 

78

 
 
 
 
                                                 
on  fisheries  certified  according  to  their  standards  but  the  two  previously  mentioned  are  the 
most prominent on the EU market.  

Fish production from EU fisheries amounted to 5.4 million tonnes in 2008. A rough estimate 
indicates  that  in  2009  some  6%  to  8%  of  EU  fisheries  are  certified52.  The  potential  for 
development of certification of EU fisheries is demonstrated by the growing number53 of EU 
fisheries  currently  under  assessment.  It  is  mainly  important  for  pelagic  fish  whose  European 
production remained constant (some two million tonnes) in the last 10 years when it decreased 
overall by 30% due to availability and quota reduction. Other fisheries and species are being 
assessed some on a large scale (saithe54) and others on a more local basis and for higher value 
products (mussels, oysters, nephrops…). The range of species from EU fisheries to be engaged 
in  certification  process  is  expanding55 which addresses one  of the constraints often raised by 
retailers and restaurants engaged in selling certified products.  

Nevertheless the EU industry has to face some constraints linked to the weak or fragile state of 
stocks  in  various  EU  fisheries  (over  80%  being  overfished)  which,  in  the  short,  run  would 
exclude  them  from  this  voluntary  market  based  tool.  The  EU  sector  may  also  suffer  from 
limited  experience  in  standards  and  certification.  Additional  constraints  appear  for  fresh 
products, which is a large and high value segment of European fisheries, since the obligation of 
certifying the chain of custody means that retails shops must also be certified. 

Consumption and demand 

Consumption of certified fisheries is concentrated in North America, the EU and more recently 
in  Japan56.  There  is  very  little  data  available  on  consumption  per  region  or  country.  As 
certification  of  EU  fisheries  started  only  recently,  so  far  the  EU  consumed  certified  fish 
products  imported  from  some  of  the  world  largest  stocks  (Alaskan  pollock,  Alaskan  salmon, 
herring, hoki...).  

In  terms  of  demand  for  certified  “sustainable  fishing”  products  it  appears,  according  to  a 
study conducted by the Commission57 that a majority of consumers in the EU are willing to be 
informed  on  sustainability  of  the  fisheries  products  they  purchase.  The  main  source  of 
information  in  that  context  is  reported  to  be  labelling.  Nevertheless  there  is  a  wide 
heterogeneity of interest in environmental considerations concerning fish products in the EU: 

52 Currently in the EU, some 10 fisheries are MSC certified. This concerned to a very large extent pelagic fish in 
DK and NL (herring 160,000 metric tones), and UK (mackerel 140,000 metric tones). saithe (DE - 10.000t 
and  FR–5-10.000t).  Other  species  are  also  concerned  but  for  a  more  limited  volume:  sea  bass,  nephrops. 
Friends  of  the  Sea  certified  Albacore  Tuna  in  Ireland,  mackerel  and  sardines  in  Portugal  (no  figures  on 
volume available). 

53 There are over 20 EU fisheries currently officially reported under assessment process by the MSC in UK, FR, 
NL,  PT,  DE…:  Sardines  in  PT  and  FR  (Bretagne  –  15000  t),  UK  (Cornwall);  Mackerel  (IRL,  DK-Feroe); 
Herring UK; Nephrops: UK ; Saithe: FR, UK; Haddock (Scotland); Shrimps, Mussels (SP – Galicia). Some 
(pre) assessments remain confidential. 

54 In the case of saithe for example, sustainable fishing labelling can be an opportunity for such products that do 
not exhaust, and sometimes by far, its annual TAC and suffer from a rather negative image, to improve its 
market penetration and stimulate investment in quality and marketing. 

55 First and main species certified in the EU were pelagic fish, and more recently haddock, hake, saithe, sea bass, 

sole, nephrops, scallops 

56 MSC is extending its network of offices in the world (Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan, …) 
57 

Image 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/survey_sector_image_summary_en.pdf  

aquaculture  products, 

the  perception  of 

survey  on 

fishery 

and 

July  2008 

- 

79

 
 
                                                 
relatively  strong  in  Northern  Europe,  limited  up  to  recently  in  Southern  Europe  and  weak  in 
Central and Eastern European countries58. 

Still,  it  can  be  considered  that  the  development  of  “sustainable  fishing”  labels  in  the  EU  is 
demand  driven.  Commitments  and  communication  by  some  of  the  main  market  makers 
(processors, retailers, catering) indicate that the steady increase observed in the last five years 
is very likely to continue59 meaning consolidating in most advanced markets and developing in 
other  EU  markets.  Large  processing  and  retail  companies  which  are  driving  the  process,  are 
operating in most EU Member States. 

Based on this dynamic demand, it can be considered that certified production of EU fisheries, 
representing some 3% of total consumption of fisheries and aquaculture products in the EU60, 
is entirely absorbed by the EU market. Considering imports of certified products in the EU, a 
very broad estimate leads to a share of sustainable fishing certified products between 5% and 
10%  in  the  EU.  Sustainable  fishing  labeled  products  are  now  sold  in  all  27  Member  States. 
Nevertheless, the UK61 and Germany represent over 80% of total EU consumption for certified 
products. Market penetration of sustainable fishing labels is also dynamic in the Netherlands, 
Sweden, France and Italy62.  

Potential  and  expected  benefits  are:  price  premiums,  access  to  new  markets,  securing, 
consolidation  or  expansion  of  market  share  in  existing  markets,  product  differentiation,  and 
longer-term advantages from improved sustainability and availability of resources, contributing 
to economic and social sustainability of the captured fish industry.  

Consumers in the EU do not consider sustainability of fisheries to be their prime responsibility 
but one of their governments and the fishing industry63. They may also need more information. 
Nevertheless,  labelling  does  influence  purchasing  decisions.  It  is  reported  that  US  certified 
Alaskan Pollock is sold on average 10% more than the same product from Russian waters. This 
together  with  market  opportunities  probably  pushed  part  of  the  Russian  fleet  to  start 
assessment in view of certification. Some European processors indicated that in order to secure 
access to certified resources they were ready to accept a price difference. This appears to be a 
strategic  policy  to  lead  the  market  niche  of  certified  fish  products.  In  addition,  fishermen 
involved  in  sustainable  fishing  labelling  schemes  report  better  predictability  and  less  price 
volatility64. 

Costs,  duration  and  access.  Cost  of  certification  can  vary  between  5,000  USD  and  over 
100,000 USD for more complex assessments with multiple units of certification. The use of a 

58 Public and private promotion campaigns are taking place or have been announced (in the UK especially) and 
media coverage is increasing in all countries. The starting point is a limited (but growing) level of awareness 
of EU consumers on sustainable fishing and a very low knowledge of existing labels. 

59 Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer, Carrefour, Metro, Dutch retail association, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Edeka (DE), Dansk 
(DK), catering Sodexo, Compass and processors: Princes (UK) , Friedrich (DE), Birdseye Iglo, Youngs UK, 
Findus  …are  all  committed  to  expand  their  range  of  certified  products  and  in  many  cases  set  ambitious 
targets and timeframes.  
Similar  trends  are  observed  in  the  USA  and  Canada:  Wallmart  announced  that  100%  certified  fresh  and 
frozen seafood by 2011 

60 EU consumption of fisheries and aquaculture products: 12 million t for a value of € 55 billion (2008).  
61 Sales in the UK increased from US$ 30 million to US$ 150 million between 2006 and 2008  
62 The number of referenced MSC labelled products tripled in France between 2008 and 2009 
63 Nielsen survey March 2009:  The consumer’s perspective  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/38/42691624.pdf 
64  Conclusions  of  the  OECD  Round  Table  on  Eco-labelling  and  Certification  in  the  fisheries  sector  - 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/43356890.pdf 

80

 
 
                                                 
logo varies from fees plus percentage of sales65 to standard yearly fee66. Pre-assessment may 
last  from  between  one  to  nine  months  with  a  full  evaluation  from  five  to  24  months.  On  the 
production side (catch) companies operating in the EU are mainly SMEs67 which have so far 
little  experience  of  certification.  Public  authorities  (EU,  national,  regional)  are  supportive  to 
this  development  and  co  finance  assessment  process68.  Development  of  certification  takes 
place  in  a  difficult  economic  context  in  the  last  2-3  years  (fuel  crisis,  access  to  credit, 
decreasing  resources…).  Profitability  is,  on  average,  lower  than  in  the  agriculture  sector  and 
investment capacity is down.  

Non financial impact: Further development of sustainable fishing certification should lead to 
increased investments in traceability systems, an increase in the variety of available tools and 
technology and reduction costs. This is expected to have very substantial spill-over effects in 
the overall fish sector69. 

Certification  contributes  to  improve  credibility  and  the  image  of  the  sector  that  has  been 
strongly affected in recent years by suspicion of non compliance and difficulty to get value and 
communicate  on  good  practices.  Market  differentiation,  positive  communication  and 
information  to  the  public  are  the  first  benefits  for  European  fisheries.  Certification  and 
labelling of sustainable fishing represent a way to secure markets and access new markets in 
the EU particularly in Northern Europe. 

65 MSC: 250- 2000 USD + 0.5% of sales 
66 Friend of the Sea: Standard Yearly fee 3.000 Euros per product with same origin (5.000 Euros on first year - 

including Audit Costs). 

67  In  the  EU  among  the  few  certified  fisheries,  there  are  several  small  scale  fisheries  (herring  from  the  River 

Thames, sardines à la bolinche de Bretagne…) 

68  The  European  Fisheries  Fund,  as  well  as  national  administrations  (UK,  DK,  SW,  NL,  DE,  FR..)  support 
certification of European fisheries. The Dutch government allocated €1 million to support certification.  
DEFRA-UK is also co-financing MSC "fish and kids programme": http://www.fishandkids.org 
69 Traceability in the fish sector has been lagging behind compared to other food industry sector. Together with 
improved technology (electronic auctions, sales notes, electronic log books…), the logistics of the sector and 
the changing regulatory framework (Regulation against Illegal Unregulated Unreported fishing, new control 
Regulation …) traceability is widespread very quickly. Labels on sustainable fishing will both benefit from 
this development and stimulate it while developing. 

81

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 8: 
European markets Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products 

Summary of the ongoing Preparatory Action 

Since  early  2010,  the  European  Commission  is  implementing  a  preparatory  action  for  a 
European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products. This important project is 
carried out as a result of a decision made by the European Parliament to allocate 4 M€ to the 
European Commission following a communication of the Commission on the consequences of 
the economic crisis for the EU fishing industry, in July 200870. 

The  aim  of  the  European  Market  Observatory  is  to  improve  market  intelligence  of  all 
stakeholders and decision makers such as the Commission, Council, Parliament and MS. The 
Market Observatory will be of major importance for the fisheries and aquaculture sector and, 
as such, constitute one of the cornerstones of the reformed Market Policy. It will be developed 
in  relation  to  the  ongoing  food  price  monitoring  exercise  which  is  being  carried  out  by  the 
Commission under the leadership of DG AGRI.  

More  specifically,  the  objective  of  the  European  Markets  Observatory  service  will  be  to 
provide harmonised economic information allowing stakeholders, administrations and regional 
fisheries organisations to have a global overview of European markets and to compare different 
local or regional market situations within the European Union.  

To reach this objective, the European Market Observatory will collect and harmonise market 
data all along the supply chain of fisheries and aquaculture products in Europe. Moreover, it 
will  produce  relevant  charts  and  tables,  as  well  as  ad  hoc  market  analyses  and  ensure  an 
adequate dissemination of this information to all users concerned.  

The steady information on prices and products which will be made available both at EU and 
Member State levels will help stakeholders and decision makers to develop adequate marketing 
strategies and public policy.  

A couple of concrete examples are provided below to illustrate the services to be provided by 
this market analysis tool.  

A  first  example  refers  to  the  market  crisis  which  the  fisheries  sector  was  faced  with  at  the 
beginning  of  2009,  in  particular  due  to  the  important  landings  of  cod  and  haddock  all  over 
Europe. For the future, it will be possible to have recourse to the European Market Observatory 
to swiftly retrieve weekly information on prices for cod, haddock and other competitive species 
in  the  main  landing  ports,  not  only  in  the  EU  but  also  in  Iceland  and  Norway.  To  get  an 
overview  of  the  situation,  price  information  on  these  same  species  may  also  be  found  at 
wholesale  and  retail  levels.  This  will  allow  detecting  any  abnormal  evolution  in  price 
formation and consequently to be able to rapidly and effectively tackle the situation and launch 
appropriate policy or marketing initiatives in a timely manner.  

70 COM(2008) 453 final / Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council 
on promoting the adaptation of the European Union fishing fleets to the economic consequences of high fuel 
prices / Brussels, 8.7.2008 

82

 
 
 
                                                 
A second example refers to the impact of the impressive development of Pangasius production 
in Vietnam on the European fisheries and aquaculture sector. This issue is frequently raised by 
private  operators,  Member  State  administrations  or  the  European  Parliament.  Adequate  and 
reliable sources of information are needed to analyse it. The European Market Observatory will 
collect and analyse market data at different levels of the supply chain, i.e. first sale, whole sale, 
extra  EU  and  intra  EU  trade,  processing  and  retail.  It  will  be  possible  to  make  swift 
assessments  based  on  reliable  and  precise  data  of  the  evolution  of  the  market-share  of 
Pangasius  on  the  different  EU  markets.  It  will  be  possible  to  identify  the  species  and  the 
market  segments  on  which  Pangasius  has  the  biggest  impact  and  to  regularly  monitor  the 
import and retail price of Pangasius in view of taking appropriate measures. 

State of Play 

In preparation of this project, DG MARE conducted, in early 2009, a preliminary consultation 
of MS and stakeholders which confirmed a strong interest in a European Market Observatory. 
They provide useful indications of the main expectations. 

Mid 2009, DG MARE launched an open call for tender71 in view of finding a suitable expertise 
to pave the way for the establishment of a turn-key European Market Observatory. Following 
established procurement rules, a team of consulting companies led by COGEA was selected to 
carry  out  the  preparatory  action72.  The  contract  was  signed  at  the  end  of  January  2010, 
subsequent  to  which  a  kick-off  meeting  was  organised  to  establish  contact  and  launch  the 
process.  A  Steering-Group  composed  of  representatives  of  DG  MARE,  DG  AGRI,  DG 
TRADE, DG ESTAT and JRC-Ispra will follow the work all along the duration of the project. 

The way forward 

In order to carry out this preparatory action to establish a European Market Observatory, three 
successive steps are planned: 

• 

• 

• 

In phase 1, which will last for around 6 months, the contractor will be requested to 
examine the availability of fisheries and aquaculture data all along the supply chain, 
identify  gaps  and  suggest  solutions  where  appropriate.  Final  results  of  this  state  of 
play phase will be available before the end of 2010. 
In phase 2, starting at the end of 2010 and ending at the end of 2011, the contractor 
will design the structure and functioning of the European Market Observatory. 
In phase 3, as a final step, the contractor will test the model for the aforementioned 
purposes and ensure a hand-over to the European Commission for the third quarter 
of 2012. 

On  the  basis  of  the  outcomes  and  evaluations  of  this  preparatory  action  the  European 
Commission will analyse the relevance of setting a permanent European Market Observatory 
for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products which would contribute to the objective of the reform 
of  the  Market  Policy  to  provide  tools  for  all  stakeholders  to  improve  market  intelligence  in 
fisheries and aquaculture products. 

71  Open  call  for  tenders  n°MARE/2009/06  published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  S/146  of 

01/08/2009 (ref. 2009/S 146-213226). See annex 1 of the present note. 

72 Contract award notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union S/31 of 13/02/2010 (ref. 2010/S 

31-043487). 

83