28.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/61

1.1

On 1 January 2003, the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the main aim of which is the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources, entered into force. To this end, a set of mandatory rules was established for both the Community fisheries sector and the Member States.

1.2

Chapter V of Regulation 2371/2002 (1) which governs the Community fisheries control and inspection system, clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Member States and of the European Commission and lays down the mechanisms for cooperation and coordination that must exist between Member States and between these and the Commission in order to ensure compliance with CFP rules.

1.3

The European Commission believes that enforcing the rules of the CFP by Member States requires a sound operational control and inspection structure at Community level, sufficient means of control and inspection and an appropriate strategy for the co-ordinated deployment of these means.

1.4

By means of this new proposal for a Regulation, (2) the European Commission wishes to create a Community Fisheries Control Agency (hereafter the Agency) as the Community's specialised technical body for ensuring the uniform and effective application of the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy by Member States, for organising operational coordination between Member States regarding fisheries monitoring and inspection and for promoting cooperation between them.

1.5

The European Commission therefore proposes that the Agency should coordinate control and inspection by Member States relating to Community control and inspection obligations; coordinate the deployment of the national means of control and inspection pooled by the Member States; assist Member States in reporting information on fishing activities and control and inspection activities to the Commission and third parties; and assist Member States in fulfilling their tasks and obligations under the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy.

1.6

The Commission also proposes that the Agency may provide contractual services to Member States at their request and at their expense, assist them in the training of inspectors, undertake the joint procurement of goods and services relating to control and inspection activities and coordinate the implementation by Member States of joint pilot projects.

1.7

The proposal for a Regulation stipulates that the Agency will be a public body of the Community having legal personality. The Commission proposes that the Agency have an Administrative Board composed of one representative from each Member State whose vessels are engaged in fishing activities relating to marine living resources and four representatives of the Commission as well as of four representatives of the fishing industry nominated by the Commission The Agency will also have an Executive Director.

1.8

The Commission intends the Agency to be funded by means of a contribution from the Community, charges for services provided by the Agency to Member States and charges for publications, training and/or any other services provided by the Agency.

1.9

Lastly, the Commission envisages that the Agency will start its work in 2006, with a budget of EUR 4.9 million and a total staff of 38 in the first year, rising to EUR 5.2 million and 49 staff members in 2007. The seat of the Agency will be in Spain.

2.1

The Commission Communication to the Council and to the European Parliament Towards a uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy  (3) provided for a feasibility study to be drawn up in coordination with the Member States prior to the creation of a Community Fisheries Control Agency (the Agency). The Commission has presented the proposed Regulation without having undertaken this feasibility study beforehand. The EESC deplores this fact.

2.2

The EESC welcomes the European Commission's proposal to create the Agency and shares its aims of achieving the effective implementation of the CFP and uniform inspection and enforcement throughout the Community. The EESC is aware of the need for uniform and effective compliance with the rules of the CFP but considers that for this to happen, these rules must be accepted and understood by the sector. If this is to be possible, the sector must be involved from the outset in the decision-making process, starting with collaborating on drafting the scientific advice on which the strategies and measures for the conservation of fisheries resources are based. The EESC therefore believes that the Agency should also focus on examining how to improve scientific advice and encouraging the sector's involvement in drafting this advice. This last point should be included in the Agency's mission as detailed in Article 4 of the proposal for a Regulation.

2.3

Given that the Agency will be the first agency dedicated exclusively to fisheries-related issues, the Committee considers that the draft Regulation should provide for the possibility of the Agency's competences being extended in future.

2.4

To this end, the EESC believes that the Agency could provide Member States and the Commission with technical and scientific advice on the effective enforcement of the rules of the CFP, in particular on the effectiveness of the inspection and control measures proposed. It could, therefore, be given the task of promoting the training of inspectors and staff specialised in control activities and creating a special training centre. Lastly, the Agency could contribute to the effort necessary to harmonise sanctions in the different Member States.

2.5

The proposed Council Regulation states that operational coordination by the Agency shall cover the inspection and control of fishing activities, up to the first point of sale of fishery products, which are carried out on the territory of Member States or in Community waters or, outside Community waters, by Community fishing vessels. The EESC considers that the Agency's operational coordination must have a broader scope. Firstly, it should cover inspection and control not only up to the first point of sale of fishery products, but of the entire food chain, in other words, from the moment the fish is caught until it reaches the end consumer. Secondly, one of its duties should be to coordinate the control of fisheries products from fishing vessels flying the flag of a third country, in particular those that practise illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

2.6

The EESC considers it to be highly appropriate that the Agency should assist both the Community and the Member States in their relations with third countries and with regional fisheries organisations, and with the latter directly, because this will help to conserve and use fisheries resources from the waters of these third countries and from international waters in a sustainable fashion. The EESC therefore believes that the budget must provide the Agency with sufficient financial means to fulfil this task, thus benefiting sustainable fisheries development.

2.7

The EESC shares the idea expressed in Article 6 of the proposed Regulation of establishing a Community Fisheries Monitoring Centre for the organisation of operational coordination of joint control and inspection activities. Nevertheless, it believes that the Regulation should spell out the duties of this Centre, in order to avoid duplicating Member State competences. The Committee believes that, once the Agency becomes operational, it must comply with the rules on confidentiality referred to in Article 33 of the Council proposal.

2.8

The EESC considers the form of the joint deployment plans referred to in Chapter III of the Commission proposal to be crucial to the effective, uniform and balanced enforcement of control policy by the various Member States. The EESC is satisfied with the content of these joint deployment plans and the procedures for their adoption, implementation and assessment and believes that the Member States should work closely with the Agency in order to see these through.

2.9

The Committee believes that the annual assessment of the effectiveness of each deployment plan provided for in the proposed Regulation is crucial to determining whether the various fleets are complying properly with existing conservation and control rules.

2.10

The EESC agrees with the proposal to create a network for exchanging information between the Commission, the Agency and the competent Member State authorities, but believes that the Agency and the Commission itself should be particularly vigilant about ensuring that confidentiality is maintained on the data obtained and shared, as Member States are required to do under Article 17(2) of the proposed Regulation.

2.11

As regards the Agency's internal structure and functioning, the proposal for a Regulation stipulates that the Agency shall be a public body of the Community having legal personality. The EESC wishes to express its full agreement with this statement, because the Agency must be a body that serves the entire Community, which acts in a completely transparent way, and which cannot influenced by the particular interests of the Commission or of the Member States. The Committee is therefore concerned at the lack of clarity as regards the way in which the Agency will appoint its officials, whether they are assigned or seconded by the Commission or Member States on a temporary basis by the Commission or the Member States.

2.12

Applying the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and the rules adopted jointly by the institutions of the European Communities to the Agency's staff is to be welcomed, as is the clear definition of the contractual and non-contractual liabilities of the Agency and its staff in the performance of their duties. Furthermore, the Committee accepts that the Court of Justice of the European Communities should have jurisdiction in disputes relating to compensation for any damage arising from the contractual liability of the Agency.

2.13

The cornerstone of the Agency's structure as presented by the Commission in Article 25 is, as in any undertaking, be it public or private, the Administrative Board. The EESC is concerned to note the excessive dependence of this Administrative Board on the Commission, which has ten votes against the single vote held by each Member State whose vessels are engaged in fishing activities relating to marine living resources. The Member States will jointly have a maximum of twenty votes, which means that the Commission will easily be able to impose its decisions. The EESC believes that, like the other representatives, those from the Commission should each have a single vote.

2.14

The Commission proposes, furthermore, to nominate four representatives from the fisheries sector to form part of the Administrative Board, without voting rights. The EESC believes that the number of representatives of the sector proposed by the Commission is extremely low and should be increased to at least eight, stating specifically that these should be nominated by European employers' and workers' organisations and that they should have voting rights. The EESC believes that the proposed Regulation should set the minimum criteria to be fulfilled by the representatives of the sector in order to gain a place on the Administrative Board. The proposed Regulation should also state that the representatives of the sector also have the right to nominate alternates on the Administrative Board.

2.15

The Commission proposes that the meetings of the Administrative Board be convened by its Chairperson and that the Board hold an ordinary meeting once a year or on the initiative of the Chairperson or at the request of the Commission or of one-third of the Member States represented on the Administrative Board. The EESC believes that the proposal should say ‘one-third of the Members of the Agency's Administrative Board’, because the representatives of the sector might also have a reason for wanting the Administrative Board to meet.

2.16

Article 27(4) of the draft Regulation states that when there is a matter of confidentiality or conflict of interest, the Administrative Board may decide to examine specific items of its agenda without the presence of the members nominated by the Commission as representatives of the fishing industry. The EESC proposes that this paragraph should be removed because this would in practice constitute a significant restriction on the involvement of representatives of the fisheries sector in Administrative Board meetings.

2.17

One of the duties that the proposed Regulation confers on the Administrative Board is the duty to produce a general report on the Agency's activities for the previous year and on its work programme for the following year, which will be forwarded to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the Member States. In the interests of greater transparency and the closer involvement of the fisheries sector, the EESC considers that there should also be an obligation to forward these reports to the European Union's Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

2.18

Article 29 of the proposal for a Regulation requires representatives of the fishing industry on the Administrative Board to make a declaration of interests indicating either the absence of any interests which might be prejudicial to their independence or any direct or indirect interests which might be considered prejudicial to their independence. The EESC believes this declaration of interests to be inappropriate and unnecessary given that any representative of the sector who is active in the field and who could be selected will have a direct interest in fisheries that could prejudice his or her independence. If declarations of interest are to be made, then the other members of the Administrative Board should also be required to make them.

2.19

The EESC is also concerned at the excessive decision-making power that the Commission will have in the selection, appointment and working practices of the Executive Director and in the removal of that individual from his or her post. Article 31 of the proposed Regulation should therefore state that the removal of the Executive Director from his or her post should, like his or her appointment, require a two-thirds majority of the members of the Executive Board. The EESC considers that the list of possible candidates for the post of Executive Director should be forwarded to the ACFA in advance so that this body can deliver a non-binding opinion on the candidates.

2.20

The Agency's budget, at least for the first few years following its establishment, must be provided mainly from the Community contribution entered in the general budget of the European Union, because the two other sources of income — charges for services provided by the Agency to Member States and charges for publication or training — can only come into play once a certain amount of time has passed. The Committee believes that for the first three years of the Agency's operation, the budget should be reasonably flexible, because the Commission proposal appears to be somewhat too restrictive.

2.21

The EESC wishes to express its support for the system for the implementation and control of the budget set out in the draft Regulation, in particular for the provisional inspection of the Agency's annual accounts by the Court of Auditors and for the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1073/1999 (4) to combat fraud, corruption and other unlawful activities to apply without restriction to the Agency. It is crucial that the Agency accedes to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

2.22

The proposal for a Regulation amends Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 (5) establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy, replacing Article 34(c), which stated that the control and inspection programmes for fisheries laid down by the Commission could not last longer than two years and that responsibility for adopting the appropriate measures, in terms of both human and material resources, fell to the Member States. The amendment set out in the proposal extends the time limit to three years or any period laid down for this purpose in an appropriate recovery plan and it lays down that the Member States shall implement the programmes on the basis of joint deployment plans. The EESC approves this amendment.

2.23

In order to meet the deadlines set and in accordance with Article 40 on the start of the Agency's activities, the EESC believes that this proposal for a Regulation should enter into force on 1 January 2005 to ensure that the Agency is able to start its activities on 1 January 2006.

3.1

The EESC congratulates the Commission on its proposal to create the Agency and urges it to give the Agency a sufficient budget to meet its objectives, suggests that it provides for the possibility of extending its competences and asks it to meet the deadlines set in the proposal for a Regulation.

3.2

The EESC thus calls on the European Commission to take account of the recommendations made in this opinion, in particular the following:

3.2.1

The Regulation should provide for the possibility of the Agency's competences being extended in future.

3.3

The Agency's operational coordination must have a broader scope. Firstly, it should cover inspection and control not only up to the first point of sale of fishery products, but of the entire agri-food chain, in other words, from the moment the fish is caught until it reaches the end consumer. Secondly, one of its duties should be to coordinate the control of fisheries products from fishing vessels flying the flag of a third country, in particular those that practise illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

3.4

The Agency must be a body that serves the entire Community, which acts in a completely transparent way, and which cannot be influenced by the particular interests of the Commission or of the Member States.

3.5

There must be balance in the representation on the Executive Board between the Member States, the European Commission and representatives of the sector.

3.6

The number of representatives of the sector on the Executive Board proposed by the Commission is extremely low, and should therefore be increased to at least eight and it should be specified that they are to be nominated by European employers' and workers' organisations and that they will have voting rights.

3.7

The Agency must comply strictly with the rules on confidentiality set out in Article 33 of the proposed Regulation.

3.8

Article 27(4) of the proposal for a Regulation should be deleted.

3.9

The declaration of sector representatives' interests set out in Article 29 is inconsistent and unnecessary. Alternatively, it should be required of all members of the Executive Board.

3.10

Lastly, the Regulation should provide greater detail on the tasks of the Community fisheries control centre.