Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products'
17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/13 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products’ (1999/C 329/05) On 23 March 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Chagas. At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to six, with two abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The present proposal for a regulation on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products comes in the wake of the communication which the Com- mission submitted to the Council and the European Parliament on 16 December 1997, on the future for the market in fisheries products in the European Union: responsibility, partnership and competitiveness. 1. 2. The proposal revises and adapts various aspects of the common market organisation and consolidates hitherto separate pieces of legislation. As regards the developments which have prompted 1. 3. these changes, the proposal gives producer organisations greater responsibility for managing resources and catches and for adjusting these to market needs. It also contains provisions designed to improve consumer information in the retail chain, and establishes mechanisms for improving the supply of products to the processing industry. 2. General comments The Committee approves the proposed regulation, 2. 1. subject to acceptance of the comments which follow: 2. 2. The Committee has always welcomed steps to improve the common market regime in the sector, in particular those designed to simplify market management and increase the role and representativeness of producer organisations, thereby helping them to become more dynamic. 2. 3. The common fisheries policy (CFP) has been adapted a number of times, inter alia in order to accommodate successive enlargements of the EU, the various fisheries traditions and practices of its Member States, and the situation regarding resources. 2. 4. With a view to improving the operation of the markets and giving producer organisations a more effective role on them, it might be useful to collect more detailed and up-to-date information on Member State producer organisations and producers (and on their situation and status). This would help to ascertain whether the current Community system of producer organisations is in tune with the production situation. The Committee calls on the Commission to conduct such an analysis with the involvement of the sector. 2. 5. In the Committee’s view, the common market organis- ation should become an effective instrument of the CFP; any changes should be consistent with the other strands of the CFP, so that the sector develops as a whole. The Committee welcomes the fact that material which 2. 6. is currently to be found in several different legislative texts is being brought into one single document. This is helpful for those working in the sector. The Committee stresses that 2. 7. is well founded and consistent, and that it takes account of its own comments and those of the sector. the proposal 2. 8. Although the common market organisation cannot solve all the sector’s problems on its own, it must consistently further the objectives of the CFP. 2. 9. At a time when fishery resources are scarce, measures which encourage producer organisations to draw up oper- ational programmes that adjust catches to market needs, thereby avoiding wastage of a common but scarce resource, are generally to be welcomed — especially if the requisite financial support is forthcoming. The fisheries sector has to contend with dwindling 2. 10. catches and competition from third country producers. In such a situation, price support is particularly important and to a large extent guarantees the economic viability of many producers. 2. 11. Making the sector viable is important for the economy of certain regions and for their inhabitants, and would also safeguard the survival and competitiveness of a product which is being recommended more and more as part of a proper diet because of its nutritional value. C 329/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 11. 1999 2. 12. The basic provisions for improving labelling and consumer information on the differences between fresh, chilled and frozen products have also been dictated by the market and will help make the activities of operators more transparent. Producer organisations should comply fully with this and exploit the Community instruments and financial support available to them to the full. exception rather than the rule. At all events, as the Commission itself says, it must not jeopardise freedom of trade. 2. 19. members concerned is to be granted by the Member States. Under the proposal, compensation for the non- 2. 13. Common marketing standards are to be established using a special procedure. This must take account of and respect the wide diversity of consumption patterns and habits (e. g. for fresh fish) within the EU. As has been done for other products, the common marketing standards should be extended to cover all salted, fresh or dried products. 2. 19. 1. funded from the EAGGF. The Committee thinks that this measure should be It is generally agreed that a further way to upgrade 2. 20. Community fishery products and protect Community pro- duction from increasing third-country competition is for the sector to adopt a quality policy that is clearly in tune with consumer preferences. 2. 14. In this connection too, the Committee emphasises the importance of minimum sizes, not only in terms of conservation policy but also in relation to international trade. 2. 21. As already noted, a true policy for improving quality begins on board ship and must be continued right through to the final consumer. Competition from third-country produce sometimes 2. 15. flouts the relevant legislation, penalising Community pro- duction and seriously disrupting the sector. 2. 16. The implementation of monitoring provisions in this area has largely been left to the Member States, and has not always been satisfactory. Despite the current trend towards greater efficacity, the Committee stresses the need for stricter monitoring, throughout the EU, of the rules governing imports and landings from third countries or vessels flying flags of convenience, especially as regards quality, minimum size and health standards. 2. 16. 1. The Committee reiterates its request to the Com- mission to endeavour to extend Community measures on the management and protection of fishery resources, both in international bodies and in bilateral agreements with third countries. The aim should be to harmonise procedures and rules so as to both protect resources and reduce distortions of competition. 2. 17. In order to avoid the disruptions and serious market crises which are sometimes triggered by unfair competition from third country producers, the Committee urges the Commission to establish a specific support mechanism to provide financial compensation for producer organisations. The measures for boosting the role of producer 2. 18. organisations will, in some circumstances, oblige non- members to comply with the rules established and adopted by the main organisation in their region. The Committee points out that this is a rather sensitive matter, and should be the 2. 22. The proposed regulation laying down rules for Com- munity structural assistance for renewal of the fleet stipulates that the capacity withdrawn must be at least 30 % greater than the new capacity added. The Committee doubts whether these conditions will enable operators to renew the fleet. Here it would reiterate the comments made in the relevant ESC opinion (1). 2. 23. A cast-iron guarantee is needed of the safety of food products for human consumption. The Committee thinks that the Commission should draw the full consequences from the analysis of the implications of the use of certain products or ingredients in feed for animals which are destined for human consumption. Similar concern must be exercised in the case of aquaculture products. 2. 24. The processing industry must be guaranteed quality and quantity of supply. To this end, conditions must be established to ensure a smooth supply — preferably from Community producers — to industry, although Community production is unable to provide all the raw materials needed by processors. 2. 25. Hitherto, the supply of third-country produce to the Community processing industry has been subject to quotas, depending on the needs of the industry. The Commission now proposes to facilitate supplies to the industry by suspending CCT duties for some selected products listed in Annex V. 2. 26. The Committee lacks information which would enable it to ascertain whether the existing quota system has proved unsuitable, and whether it is this that has prompted the proposal to remove quota restrictions on Annex V products. (1) OJ C 209, 22. 7. 1999, p. 10. 17. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 329/15 2. 26. 1. the socio- The Committee is concerned about economic consequences of this measure, as it may make Community production even greater prey to third-country competition, adding the new customs concessions to the already low cost of production factors and raw materials. 2. 26. 2. As regards the supply of raw materials to the processing industry, the Committee would prefer that the case-by-case analyses and the current quota system be main- tained for all products. The Committee recommends immedi- ate action to reduce the amount of time and red tape needed to authorise the suspension of customs duties, with a view to smoothing supplies to the Community processing industry. 2. 27. As regards funding, the Committee would stress that the reform is ambitious and far-reaching, and must be backed by an equally extensive financial allocation if it is to have any real impact on the sector. Brussels, 22 September 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the marketing of forest reproductive material’ (1) (1999/C 329/06) On 8 September 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Kallio. At its 366th plenary session (meeting of 22 September 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 108 votes in favour and one abstention. 1. Background 1. 1. The marketing of forest reproductive material within the EU is currently governed by two directives: Directive 66/404/EEC (the origin directive), which is concerned with the origin of material for marketing and the information required about such material, and Directive 71/161/EEC (the quality directive) on the quality of seeds and planting stock. These directives were issued in 1966 and 1971 respectively and since then have undergone very little modification. The Commission recognized the need for the directives to be revised during accession negotiations with Finland and Sweden, and these countries were granted a transitional period until the end of 1999 to implement them. 2. Assessment of the proposal 2. 1. The present draft directive is the result of considerable effort by the working group and lengthy preparation within (1) OJ C 199 of 14. 7. 1999, p. 1. the Standing Committee on seeds and propagating material for agriculture, horticulture and forestry. It combines the above-mentioned directives into a single text and makes numerous modifications to both of them. 2. 2. The proposal takes account of Finland and Sweden’s special needs by adding a new category of reproductive material, known as source-identified (‘stand seed’), which could not be used under the current directives. The use of material belonging to this category is indispensable, especially in northern parts of Finland and Sweden. Those countries which do not wish to use such material (e. g. Germany) can prohibit it in their national legislation. Member States are also allowed to impose more stringent requirements than those laid down in the proposal in other respects within their own territory, which ensures that there will be no need to compromise on the level of regulation previously adhered to once the revised directive comes into effect. In this sense the proposal successfully takes account of the differing needs of Member States