Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "The Future for the Market in Fisheries Products in the European Union: Responsibility, Partnership and Competitiveness"'
C 235/56 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 States, and also in the event of failure to reach a decision. This basic democratic right of citizens is reflected in the general principles of Community law. 3. 7. Articles 7 to 21 The Committee has deliberately not commented on the specific changes to the sectoral directives. It considers that its priority should be to comment, in as concerted a form as possible, on the changes of principle proposed by the Commission, and for this reason it feels that it should refrain from discussion of essentially uncontro- versial adjustments. 4. Final comments The Committee in principle endorses the Commission proposal as it considers this to be an important instru- ment for simplification of the law and greater trans- parency. The proposed measures for simplification of work will, apart from making for an improved cost/benefit relationship, accelerate work processes and thus strengthen citizens’ confidence in Europe. Brussels, 27 May 1998. 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 and the European Parliament “The Future for the Market in Fisheries Products in the European Union: Responsibility, Partnership and Competitiveness”’ (98/C 235/12) On 22 December 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 May 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas. At its 355th plenary session (meeting of 27 May 1998), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 103 votes with six abstentions. 1. Introduction The aim of the communication from the Com- 1. 1. mission is to lay the foundations for a debate on the amendments to be made to the common organization of the market (COM), in order to improve market functioning and bring this aspect of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) into line with changes on the fisheries products markets. The Commission is to submit proposals for 1. 2. improving the operation of the COM at a later stage. 2. General comments will submit the document to a broad institutional debate and wide-ranging consultation with the principal actors in the fisheries sector (vessel owners, workers, industry, consumers). 2. 2. The Committee recalls that the COM was set up under Regulation (EEC) No 2142/70 (1), which outlined the general principles governing this aspect of the Common Fisheries Policy, and which has been adjusted over the years when necessary. The most recent adjust- ment was made by the basic regulation which came into force on 1 January 1993 (2). The Committee welcomes the Commission’s 2. 1. communication, and in particular its statement that it (1) OJ L 236, 27. 10. 1970, p. 5. (2) OJ L 388, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1. 27. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 235/57 2. 3. The COM has many parallels with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — on which it is largely modelled — and shares certain of its objectives, such as market stabilization, guarantee of supplies and reasonable prices. The COM also complies with the same principles: market unity, financial solidarity and Community preference. the COM are fully consistent with identical measures, already taken or to be adopted, in connection with the other aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy, particularly concerning structures, resources and moni- toring. 2. 4. Unlike the CAP, the COM has been affected by the binding in GATT of the entire customs tariff for fishery products. This was a political choice, decided at the Dillon Round of GATT negotiations in the 1960s, and the difficulties it has caused are well known; it has also made it impossible for the Commission to increase tariff protection. Further concessions were made in subsequent rounds. As the common customs tariff is bound in GATT, 2. 5. the COM for fishery products operates under market economy conditions, making it impossible to restrict imports from third countries or adjust production aid, with the exception of the safeguard measures under GATT rules. This does not mean that the principle of Community preference is not fully implemented, or that the customs tariff for fishery products is not carefully applied: whenever protection of Community production is reduced, it is counterbalanced by concessions by third countries which are of direct benefit to the fisheries sector. The COM alone cannot solve the range of 2. 6. problems affecting the sector. It should be borne in mind that 2. 7. the main imbalances in the sector spring mostly from overcapacity in relation to available resources, which in turn do not match demand, excessive debt, high levels of exploitation, low productivity and, to some extent, inadequacies in marketing channels. These internal, structural factors, considerable in themselves, are aggra- vated by external factors such as market globalization, the lowering of tariff barriers and/or the dismantling of obstacles to trade, competition from other products, and lower transport costs which bring European markets within range of the sector’s main competitors. 2. 8. For EU fisheries to survive on a viable basis, resources must be exploited rationally and integrated measures must be adopted covering all aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy. 2. 10. The Committee would also point out that as part of the broad-based approach mentioned above, future adjustments to the COM in fishery products must be matched by socio-economic support measures to facilitate their adoption by the sector. In this respect, it is also important for producers’ organizations to be present and active in all Member States involved in the fisheries sector. 2. 11. The aim of the COM for fishery products is to regulate market competition, preventing unfair compe- tition by third countries while respecting the Union’s international commitments. The European Union and the Member States 2. 12. must use the instruments available to them more rigorously to prevent fishery resources being marketed within the Community with total disregard to the established rules, in unfair competition with our oper- ators. This situation is unacceptable, as both the fisheries sector and the ESC have argued on several occasions. There are many shortcomings in the checks on the application of the current rules, which are in part responsible for the unsettled conditions in the sector. 2. 12. 1. Application of current provisions governing imports must be checked more strictly, particularly with regard to hygiene and health requirements, labelling and minimum fish size (immatures). As for other products in similar circumstances, 2. 13. matching offer and demand is the decisive factor in determining producer income. Producers must draw the appropriate conclusions, and the COM intervention mechanisms should be in a position to fulfil this regulatory role, especially since catches are by nature unpredictable. The Committee notes that EU per capita fish 2. 14. consumption has risen continuously, but very modestly, over the last few years of the 1990s, and that consumption patterns vary widely, particularly for fresh fish. The Committee assumes that the Commission 2. 9. will ensure that the measures currently proposed under 2. 15. Positive steps can be taken to encourage the European public to eat more fish, which would also contribute to healthier eating patterns: promotion of fishery products is an aspect which COM reform C 235/58 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 must under no circumstances overlook. Producers’ organizations should make more frequent use of existing Community incentives to support campaigns promoting fish consumption and publicity campaigns for the consumption of new species. 2. 15. 1. meeting this objective on a lasting basis. The price factor could also play a key role in 2. 16. Producers’ organizations and the entire com- mercial sector downstream of them must also take steps to improve market transparency and recognize the strategic importance of consumer information. 2. 16. 1. The Committee agrees that optimization of production and greater transparency in commercial relations depend on the adoption of measures concerning the trade name of species, their origin, production method and degree of freshness. 2. 16. 2. The Committee hopes that the proposals on the vertical integration of the sector will be put forward as soon as possible. 2. 17. responsible fishing and trading. The Committee fully supports the principle of 2. 17. 1. The Committee considers that the promotion of good practice, in both sea catches and aquaculture and marketing, could help to raise standards generally, and more specifically could help Community production to compete with third countries. 2. 18. Concentrating supply, by encouraging fisher- men to land their catches in ports equipped for control operations, could act as a powerful deterrent to illicit practices. 2. 19. The Committee expresses some reservations concerning the wording of point III. A. 4(b) on fishery products which comply with the rules of ‘environmental protection’. It believes that this concept needs proper clarification, as it could be misused to sanction practices which distort competition. Brussels, 27 May 1998. 2. 20. If the growing and increasingly fierce compe- tition from non-EU producers, and from EU fish farm produce (which is booming, even for high-value products), is to be met successfully, the sector must make a real commitment to a quality-based policy capable of satisfying consumer demands. The Committee agrees that support should be 2. 21. given to actions smoothing the flow of supplies — in good condition and of good quality — from Community production to the processing industry, given the com- plementary nature of the two sectors. The use of supply contracts would appear to offer an appropriate solution here. 2. 21. 1. The aim is to avoid distortions of competition given tariff concessions granted to third countries to gain access to the Community market, and the advantages they enjoy in terms of lower production factor and raw material costs. In a context of scarce resources, the Committee 2. 22. agrees that in broad terms the sector should begin to give serious thought to abolishing incentives for withdrawal-destruction, so as to encourage producers to make more systematic use of withdrawal-carryover, as has been the case for some farm produce. Innovation in the creation of new products and more sophisticated processing methods should be strongly supported. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. It is pointed out, in connection with chapter III A(3), on private storage aid, that in some Member States producers’ organizations do not always own their stocks. It must therefore be made clearer to whom storage aid is granted. 3. 2. Turning to the trade arrangements with third countries and the adoption of good practice in both the catch and marketing sectors, the Committee considers that the comments on fish caught in international waters should also mention vessels flying flags of convenience. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS