Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy'
21. 1. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/71 fresh, pasteurised milk (i. e. not UHT-milk), which explains why these products have little relevance on markets outside Finland and Sweden. The wording suggested in the proposal does not prevent any other Member State from marketing drinking milk in Finland and Sweden provided that it satisfies the rules laid down in Community legislation. 3. Special comments Article 3(1) specifies the criteria to be met by 3. 1. drinking milk, with particular reference to fat content. The ceiling authorized for skimmed milk is 0,3 %. One way of increasing the consumer’s range of choice, without any change in the current basic rules, would be to authorize a variable rate of up to 0,5 %. For instance, on the Swedish market drinking milk with a fat content of between 0,3 % and 0,5 % accounts for as much as 17 % of total sale. The possibility of meeting this demand has a very positive impact on the milk market. Article 3(2) 3. 2. refers to the derogation from Article 3(1) currently applicable to Finland and Sweden and extends it for a further two years. In view of the transitional rules from which other countries have benefited in this matter, the ESC feels that a longer transitional period of five years would be more appropri- ate to enable the two countries to undertake the necessary adjustments. By way of comparison, other Member States have been granted a transitional period of con- siderably more than two years for the purpose of adaptation. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy’ (1) (98/C 19/21) On 29 July 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Chagas as rapporteur-general for its opinion. At its 349th plenary session held on 29 and 30 October 1997 (meeting of 29 October) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 97 votes in favour and one abstention. 1. The Commission proposal In 1. 1. accordance with Council Regulation No 779/97 introducing arrangements for the manage- ment of fishing effort in the Baltic Sea (2), the Commission is presenting a proposal to implement title IIA of Council Regulation No 2847/93 (3) in the Baltic Sea. This deals in particular with the recording and transmission of data regarding fishing effort. 2. Comments As the Committee has already had the oppor- 2. 1. tunity to state on a number of occasions, it is important to guarantee compliance with Community provisions (1) OJ C 267, 3. 9. 1997, p. 62. (2) OJ L 113, 30. 4. 1997, p. 1. (3) Regulation establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1. C 19/72 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21. 1. 98 regarding the management of fishing effort. Further- more, this is also the view taken in the 1995 Commission report on Monitoring the Common Fisheries Policy (1), which states that: ‘the adoption of an effective monitoring system, at all levels of responsibility, is a conditio sine qua non for the successful implementation of the CFP. ’ 2. 2. The Committee thus supports the present Com- mission proposal, which is pursuant to the provisions of Regulation No 779/97. 2. 3. The Committee does, however, take the view that the measures for monitoring the management of fishing effort should be adopted in the EU in collabor- ation with the International Baltic Sea Fishery Com- mission, in order that they may be applied to all the countries that fish there. This was pointed out in the ESC opinion on the proposal for the introduction of arrangements for the management of fishing effort in the Baltic Sea (2). (1) COM(97) 226 final. (2) OJ C 296, 29. 9. 1997. Brussels, 29 October 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European initiative in electronic commerce’ (98/C 19/22) On 21 April 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 October 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Folias, and the co-rapporteur was Mr Skouby. At its 349th plenary session of 29 and 30 October 1997 (meeting of 29 October 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 99 votes to one with one abstention. I. INTRODUCTION II. A EUROPEAN INITIATIVE IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE The Commission Communication ‘A European Initiat- ive in Electronic Commerce’, responds to the challenges of the times by seeking to lend new impetus to the ongoing dialogue on the development of electronic commerce, both within the European Union and, given its international nature, at world level. The ESC particu- larly welcomes this communication, which has stimu- lated and motivated extensive discussion at every level. (For ease of reference, the chapter headings, or titles, in the text that follows have been kept exactly the same as those in the Commission communication, as have the paragraph numbers. ) 1. 1. (§ 4) One fundamental parameter of electronic commerce — the need for commerce, services and distribution networks, and most of all SMEs, to make greater use of it so that a critical mass of users is reached — is not sufficiently emphasized in the basic points of the communication. The introduction gives the — possibly unintentional — impression of underestimating the importance of the views of users (individuals and firms), who are best placed to comment