Brussels, 23/07/2001 (Agence Europe) - In a common stance, Europeche (Association of national fishing company organisations in the EU) and Cogeca (general committee for EU agricultural cooperation) assert that the Green Paper on the future of common fisheries policy (CFP) presents a reasonable fair vision, though unduly negative and pessimist and that it lacks a true socio-economic dimension. These organisations also underline that the policy document by Commissioner Franz Fischler presents failings with regards to distant fishing, which nevertheless constitutes a necessary complement to fishing carried out in Community waters and the development of fish farming. Below is a summary of the positions expressed by these two professional organisations.
Conservation policy: a majority of Europeche and Cogeca members are favourable towards maintaining the system of TACs and quotas as the central pillar of resource conservation policy, a minority favour a system of alternative management based on the regulation of the fishing effort. Favourable towards multiannual TACs, they call for greater stability in the farming conditions, through variations limited to 15% from one year to the next. Some of there members favour the maintaining of the fleet management through the MAGP. Europeche and Cogeca hope that any introduction of a ban for rejecting certain types of fishing is accompanied by in-depth practical assessments. They do not cast doubt over the maintaining of the restrictions presently imposed on fishing activities (Shetland Box), but hope that a scientific assessment is carried out rapidly and, that in the future, any closure of areas is based on such an assessment. These organisations are in favour of the status quo concerning access to the North Sea after 2002: in fact it would be unacceptable, in the framework of the responsible management of resources, that fishermen, who do not have quotas be authorised to fish species outside the quota, given the negative consequences this would have in terms of by-catches and waste. A minority calls for access to the North Sea in the name of equal treatment of European Union fishermen. Either way, Europeche and Cogeca deplore that the Commission remains "very ambiguous" concerning access to the North Sea.
Economic and social dimension: though the Commission recognises that the economic and social effects of CFP have been neglected, the present chapter bring few glimmers of hope for fishermen and their companies whose future may be summarised in these words: contraction of the sector, fishermen leaving the profession, reduction or even ending of aid for modernisation or the construction of ships… They call on the Commission to take initiatives to improve the sectors image and to ensure that youths are drawn to it (training, security, better living and working conditions). Europeche and Cogeca feel that the guidelines for the development of fish farming are insufficiently ambitious, while they bring a significant contribution in terms of the sustainable use of resources, as they represent around 25% of the supply of fish and that they provide a significant number of jobs in many regions dependent on fishing. They call for the Commission to contribute towards relaunching the image of fish farming, which suffers from criticisms from various sectors. Europeche has serious doubts as to the possibility of further developing fishing aimed at producing meals for fish feed. In fact, it feels that this development risks worsening the imbalance in the wild fish food chain and the marine ecosystem. The two organisations want the harmonisation of the social regulations to cover all social law, in order to put an end to all the disparities and distortions in competition in terms of the social costs and to improve security, living and working conditions for crews.
Environmental dimension: while showing itself to being sensitive towards environmental issues Europeche and Cogeca do not understand why the Commission would give the priority to environmental aspects of fishing, to the extent of strengthening the legal basis in this matter. A near unanimity recognises the pressure in favour of the principal of eco-labelling, which is spreading in certain Member States and the value of a regulatory framework that would bring additional guarantees in terms of reliability and security of fishing products. Established on a voluntary basis, eco-labelling should also and especially cover the "quality" aspect of the marketed products.
Health and safety: They recall that Community regulations relating to foodstuffs must not be limited to setting maximum levels in terms of contaminants contained in them, but must also tackle the causes of this pollution, from which fishermen are the first victims. Europeche and Cogeca call for the possible socio-economic prejudices that may result from this regulation (for example, the closure of a fish farm) to be repaired by the EU.
They support the Commission's concern that imported products meet health standards of a level equivalent to those of Community regulations. In this respect they call for Community control to be strengthened at the Union's borders.
Fleet policy. Most professionals in the sector have often called for the ending of the MAGPs in their present form, which they consider "unsuited for managing fish resources and as tending to produce perverse side-effects in parts of the CFP which are as fundamental as the ability to modernise or build vessels". They are in favour of the idea of a fleet management system, as long as it is a simple, transparent and non-bureaucratic system. They point out that the Council regulation on the common organisation of markets in fishery and aquaculture products offers interesting instruments for fleet policy and co-management, in particular via the defining of fishing plans by the producer organisations. EUROPECHE and COGECA urgently call for the FIFG to be allowed to continue to participate in financing investments to renew the production tools, mainly for reasons of safety, the quality of life on board vessels, and competitiveness. It is therefore, they say, essential to distinguish between a vessel's active capacity (generating fishing effort) and its passive capacity (installed equipment, improving quality, living and working conditions, etc.) which do not generate fishing effort.
Governance within the CFP. Professionals of the sector support the idea of setting up Regional advisory Committees, with the express provision that these should not impinge on the authority and responsibility of the Commission and the Council and that their role remain purely advisory. Opinions are divided as to the decentralisation of certain fisheries management responsibilities. Some members fear "renationalisation" of the CFP, whilst others stress that this would be a good way of developing marine resources through greater involvement of the professionals. EUROPECHE and COGECA acknowledge the utility of regional "fisheries" and thematic workshops for discussing the conditions under which specific fisheries should be run, limited to certain marine regions. They also consider that the time gap separating scientific opinions, the Commission's proposals and the Council's deliberations "do not make it possible to take into account at its true value the real-life situation of the fisheries sector which can be confronted with new and dramatically changed fishing conditions from one day to the next".
Monitoring, control and enforcement. A large majority of the professionals in the sector consider that "the entire body of control responsibilities ought to be transferred to the European Commission, that the number of Community inspectors should be increased and their authority strengthened. The idea of a Commission agency or specialist department coordinating Member State policies and activities is an interesting one". EUROPECHE and COGECA recommend harmonising inspections and the sanctions that can be applied to fishermen in the various Member States.
External relations. A majority of the members of both organisations are in favour of maintaining the so-called reciprocity agreements in their present form. Apart from the need for firmness in managing these agreements, in particular with Norway, certain concerns exist owing the fact that the Nordic reciprocity agreements do not benefit certain Member States. With regard to the other fisheries agreements with third countries, EUROPECHE and COGECA recall the essentially commercial nature of the agreements, as the Council itself acknowledged when it called for the so-called "first generation" agreements (access against royalty payments) to be kept in place. The Commission must play a driving role within the Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFO) in the priority aim of defending the interests of the Community fleet by promoting responsible fishing, the fight against unlawful fishing, protection of the environment and support of commercial instruments to encourage sustainable fishing. To achieve this, the Commission must have the human and financial resources necessary to attain sufficient weight within the RFOs.
Mediterranean. Professionals of the sector welcome the Commission's intention to promote the integration of the Mediterrranean into the CFP by improving scientific opinions, overhauling regulation No1626/94 and strengthening effective application of current Community regulations. They also confirm their attachment to the creation of an inter-professional Mediterrranean association in the form of a joint and permanent discussion forum of all national professional fishing organisation of Mediterranean rim countries which could serve to realise the shared objectives of all the players involved. Finally, they call for international Mediterranean disputes over jurisdiction of waters, and which are the competence of Member Sates, to be brought to the knowledge of the Commission.