Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision on a Community financial contribution towards certain expenditure incurred by the Member States in implementing the monitoring and control system applicable to the common fisheries policy ()

(96/C 18/17)

On 6 July 1995 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 Pricolo as Rapporteur-General for its Opinion.

At its 329th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 October 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with no dissenting votes and two abstentions.

1. The proposal provides for a Council decision to extend the Community's financial contribution towards Member States' expenditure on implementing the CFP's monitoring and control system.

1.1. The proposal establishes the provisions for a Community contribution to such expenditure for the period from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2000.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee broadly supports the thinking behind the proposal.

2.2. The Committee has on a numer of occasions emphasized that control of fishing activities is a vital aspect of the CFP. Effective, fair and transparent controls can improve compliance with the present rules, reduce the wastage caused by overfishing and help ensure the survival of this sector of the Community economy.

2.3. Action is needed to remedy the shortcomings which currently surround the control of third country vessels exporting or landing in the EU immature fish or produce which does not comply with health regulations.

2.4. The Committee takes the view that control policy can only be successful if the Member States implement it fairly and effectively. However, given the disparities which still exist, the Committee considers that the desired level of efficacy will only be achieved by increasing the powers and means of control of the relevant Community authorities.

2.5. It would be helpful if Member States could harmonize their sanctions against infractions, as these currently differ.

2.5.1. The Committee considers that in the interests of greater fairness and neutrality, monitoring and controls at sea should gradually be brought under Community responsibility.

2.6. The Committee recognizes the value of the Community contribution to certain expenditure incurred by Member States to meet their control obligations and to ensure compliance with obligations of Community interest.

2.7. Large tonnage vessels being definitively laid up could be used for monitoring, once they have been fitted out. This would provide considerable financial savings.

2.7.1. However, the Committee emphasizes that controls can only be improved and made more effective at Community level if adequate financial resources are allocated to them. Despite a modest improvement, the Community budget allocation for control activities remains inadequate, and is clearly out of step with the sums which some of our competitors allocate to them.

2.8. The new CFP control system enshrined in Regulation 2847/93 lays down new obligations for the Member States, extending to structures and markets, Mediterranean fisheries, and fishing by Community vessels in both third-country and international waters.

2.8.1. Although the budget allocation has been increased, it will be difficult to meet the desired objectives in full, particularly bearing in mind the recent enlargement of the EU and the fact that ECU 2 000 000 of the annual budget for funding Member States' expenditure in this area has been earmarked to meet Council commitments to one Member State.

2.8.2. In order to allow Member States to assume their Community obligations regarding controls and organize the related investments with certainty, the Committee calls for greater flexibility in the administration of the available funds.

2.9. The Committee feels that the major change which the Commission has made in the percentage of the Community contribution covering the purchase of the physical (sea- and air-based) means of control is not justified, because it is precisely these means which place the heaviest budgetary burden on the Member States. In some of them, this burden may be disproportionate.

2.9.1. The Committee would like the percentage of the Community contribution to remain the same as in the earlier Council Decision 89/631.

2.10. The EU is not a uniform community in development terms. A number of regions, notably those covered by Objective 1, suffer various imbalances and difficulties. These regions, like those which are particularly reliant on fisheries, require special attention from the EU.

2.10.1. For those working in the sector to accept the control measures, they must be fair and transparent so that no-one feels discriminated against or the target of more stringent controls. The EU must see that appropriate measures are taken to boost fishermen's confidence in the control measures and in the EU's action, which must guarantee equal treatment for all.

2.10.2. Without wishing to question the Council's commitment to a Member State (in the present case, Ireland), the Committee considers that the Community budget allocation should be increased by the amount of the additional financial support for Ireland.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Article 1(2)

The words 'national authorities' should be replaced by 'relevant authorities'.

3.2. Article 1(3)

Without prejudice to the comments set out in 2.8.1 above, the sum should be increased by the annual sum allocated to Ireland.

3.3. Article 4(1a)

The word 'forward' should be added before 'programme'.

3.4. Article 5(1)

The list of information in point 3 of the Annex should be redrafted so as to avoid additional red tape.

Some of the requirements listed are impossible.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 186 of 20.7. 1995, p. 9.