15.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/37

1.

welcomes the European Commission communication on Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, and would stress that aquaculture production must be treated as a strategic sector (on a par with other primary sector production areas) when it comes to responding to future challenges in the areas of food resources, natural resources and regional development;

2.

reiterates the importance of Blue growth and that a Europe-wide strategy to support the sustainable development of aquaculture is absolutely essential if the sector's employment objectives are to be met and its productivity increased in line with the Europa 2020 strategy for relaunching the EU's economy;

3.

calls for a key aim of the guidelines to be reducing illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing through a multi-level governance approach;

4.

notes that it has championed aquaculture in a number of its opinions, calling for this policy to be recognised in its own right, and properly funded and promoted in order to enable it to develop into a strong alternative to traditional fisheries. The Committee should therefore be recognised as a key partner for promoting this policy;

5.

draws attention to the FAO estimates that 47% of all fish for human consumption now comes from aquaculture and regrets the fact that EU aquaculture production amounts to a mere 2,3% in terms of volume and 4% in terms of value at world level (1);

6.

is deeply concerned that Europe, which used to lead production of farmed fish, now needs to import over 60% of its aquaculture products despite being perfectly capable of producing this food within the Union, while providing its people with jobs and complying with the highest standards;

7.

recognises the need to unlock the potential of aquaculture and turn this stagnating sector into a blossoming branch of the economy;

8.

welcomes the recognition given to the need to reduce the gulf between the volume of seafood consumed in the EU and the volume of catches produced by fisheries activities in the EU, and to the role that the aquaculture sector should play in achieving this objective;

9.

stresses that, in the European sphere, sustainable development has become the sine qua non of any socio-economic growth policy and that it has to be the focus for political commitment and resources in all sectors;

10.

believes that the sustainable development of aquaculture is of strategic importance, given that it is of direct interest to all regions and local communities (even non coastal areas) and in the light of the interplay between environmental policy, marine and river water quality and the sector's economic performance;

11.

notes that European aquaculture is not a uniform sector but is characterised by a variety of farming methods, including closed and open, extensive and intensive systems, on land, in lakes, ponds, inlets and tanks, inshore and offshore, and that it covers freshwater fish, marine fish and shellfish farming, stretching from the cold waters of Scandinavia to the warm sea basins of southern Europe. Nevertheless, regardless of these differences, European aquaculture needs support in order to become a competitive and valuable branch of the economy and a source of local employment, know-how and pride;

12.

recognises the need for an awareness campaign to highlight this wealth and diversity and to promote greater transparency in aquaculture product labelling so as to distinguish between products from intensive farms and those from farms that are closer to natural conditions (e.g. offshore cages, etc.);

13.

takes the view that the EU should lead the way in the development of ecological and sustainable fish farming methods, pioneering the ‘blue revolution’ by applying technology and innovation to fish production, feeding, hatching and harvesting within the EU;

14.

shares concern at the stagnation in EU aquaculture production, which is not yet benefiting sufficiently from the competitive advantage offered by the high quality and food hygiene standards of European seafood;

15.

recommends that the EU maintain the highest possible controls over imported aquaculture products, which often provide the raw material for subsequent processing by European companies and ensure a standardised framework of healthy and sanitary, labour and environmental conditions for both imported products and ‘made in the EU’ products;

16.

draws attention to the potential positive economic and social knock-on effects of sustained growth in the aquaculture sector (and in the related production chains), given the possibility of meeting the growing internal demand that is currently met by imports and sparking employment growth in the EU;

17.

welcomes the Commission's efforts to launch a process of voluntary cooperation, involving the Member States in the drafting of multiannual national strategic plans but nevertheless advocates that the creation of progress indicators not involve excessive red tape for businesses and local authorities;

18.

regrets the Commission's failure to mention the role that can be played by local and regional authorities in promoting the sustainable development of aquaculture, promoting for instance general knowledge of aquaculture products by means of information programmes in schools and promoting the consumption of local and seasonal products (short supply chains);

19.

recommends that the proposed Aquaculture Advisory Council make the most of the input of those regions in certain Member States that have developed expertise in the area of economic development;

20.

agrees on the potential importance for the sustainable development of aquaculture of upholding EU legislation in the realms of the environment, public health, consumer protection and environmental sustainability, which must be the basis for the coherent planning of common objectives under the multiannual national strategic plans;

21.

also agrees on the need to do as much as possible to promote application of European environmental legislation without imposing unnecessary burdens on operators in the production chain; in this respect, the know-how of the producers themselves and of local and regional authorities could prove decisive in the context of the Aquaculture Advisory Council;

22.

stresses the importance of the stakeholder consultations and hopes that these consultations will be repeated before the end of 2017 alongside the planned mid-term assessment of the national plans;

23.

endorses the priority areas identified by the Commission and the corresponding guidelines, which focus on the need to: a) cut red tape, b) facilitate access to space and water, c) boost the sector's competitiveness, and d) help to secure a level playing field by exploiting EU aquaculture's competitive advantages;

24.

recalls that more than 90% of aquaculture businesses are SMEs whose overall profitability and potential for sustainable development depend on transparency, efficient administrative procedures and predictability. Without a clear framework, economic operators cannot make informed choices so as to invest in their activities and expand them, creating jobs and increasing output;

25.

deplores the fact that the barriers to setting up new aquaculture farm businesses, already identified in the 2002 communication and the corresponding CoR opinion, have not only persisted but have become even greater. The daunting two-to-three year procedure to establish a new aquaculture farm (compared with a mere six months in Norway, Europe's leader in this sector) puts many potential entrepreneurs off and sets the EU collectively at a disadvantage compared with its global competitors. Legislation that can reduce the average times and the differences between Member States is more necessary than ever;

26.

calls on the Commission to take into account maximum sustainable yield in its strategic guidelines.

27.

agrees that it would be worthwhile for the Commission to work with the relevant authorities to pinpoint best practice and to secure improvements in administrative efficiency, using the data collected by the Member States; this kind of analysis should also be applied to procedures relating to the payment of Community subsidies to aquaculture companies;

28.

notes that in the EU it is often local and regional authorities that are in charge of licensing of fish farms and supporting aquaculture SMEs operating in their areas. Faced with stringent environmental protection laws and pressure from green NGOs and the tourism industry on the one hand, and the economic decline of traditional fisheries and growing unemployment on the other, local and regional authorities stand only to benefit from clear guidelines on the sustainable development of EU aquaculture;

29.

points out that local and regional authorities have much to offer when it comes to promoting best administrative practice, starting by providing the information that the Member States have been asked to collect by the end of 2013;

30.

points out that aquaculture tends to be more vulnerable to pollution than fisheries, and that it is important to encourage the Member States to draw up risk maps and impact maps to cover inland areas, territorial waters and coastal areas; these maps could be sent to the European Agency for Maritime Safety and should contain information on infrastructure and usage that has a potential impact on water quality, efforts under way to mitigate the problem, monitoring campaigns, major new projects, etc.;

31.

recognises that the aquaculture sector would benefit from coordinated spatial planning, which is indispensable in the maritime context too as a means of reducing the number of conflicts between overlapping use claims, enhancing their sustainability, reducing uncertainty, facilitating investment and stepping up aquaculture business development;

32.

recommends making the most of the opportunity to involve coastal action groups at the regional planning phase. These groups can provide a means of involving the region in planning and resource management, and speak for a large number of regional stakeholders;

33.

would underline the importance of cooperation between aquaculture and fisheries which, if developed in synergy, generate benefits for companies, coastal and island communities, given that the processing units no longer required by fisheries could be absorbed by the growing aquaculture sector; furthermore the cooperation between aquaculture and the processing and commercial activity, if also developed in synergy, can generate added value for aquaculture products;

34.

calls on the Commission to require that, when drafting their multiannual national strategic plans, the Member States examine in depth the impact on aquaculture companies operating in coastal areas, the criteria for softening the impact and possible compensatory measures for these companies;

35.

agrees on the importance of identifying those areas best suited to freshwater aquaculture, while hoping that the national best practice to be identified by the Member States will include elements relating to freshwater aquaculture;

36.

agrees on the possibility of cutting red tape for entrepreneurs and highlighting the issue of the environmental impact of aquaculture companies as part of the spatial planning process;

37.

would like to see the inclusion in the strategic guidelines of reference to the importance in the context of coordinated planning for coastal areas of making more of brackish water environments (marshland and lagoons), which can make a significant contribution to social and economic resilience in periods of crisis while also boosting aquaculture production in the EU;

38.

agrees with the assessment of the positive impact that more efficient market organisation and more structured producers' organisations can have on aquaculture businesses;

39.

calls on the Commission to continue its direct consultation of producers' organisations operating in the aquaculture sector, which is aimed at highlighting the main obstacles to development encountered by those organisations and any solutions that may have been found;

40.

recognises that the production and marketing plans put in place by producers' organisations are key tools when it comes to improving the competitiveness of aquaculture companies (in combination with production chain agreements, inter-professional agreements and branding policies) and to responding effectively to consumers' growing expectations regarding the quality and diversity of food products;

41.

underlines the role that local and regional authorities and their agencies (active in carrying out research and running trials) can play both in promoting market-oriented research, innovation and knowledge transfer and in enabling Member States to seek and secure synergies between the various national research programmes;

42.

would encourage the Commission to continue to pay close attention to the extremely serious problem for extensive aquaculture and biodiversity that is posed by fish-eating birds and other fish-eating animal species (e.g. European Otter) and to assess the effectiveness of any derogation provisions that Member States might have applied to the Birds Conservation and Habitats Directive; additionally it should also be immediately examined if the strict protection of fish-eating, ‘problematic animal species’ in specific regions seems to still be compliant with EU law at all, in order to be able to easily justify, on the basis of modified classifications, the necessary exceptions in the Member States;

43.

deems it highly appropriate that Member States and local and regional authorities should support and develop education and training programmes adapted to aquaculture market needs and provide information on current supply and the growth policies being pursued;

44.

would argue when it comes to knowledge transfer, best practice and innovation, that the Commission could proceed both by establishing the planned European market observatory and by encouraging Member States to steer their future operational programmes towards broader support for those aquaculture companies (especially collective enterprises) that are involved in knowledge transfer and innovation;

45.

recognises the need for consumers to be kept up to date on the quality of all aquaculture products, European and other; proper information can only serve to make the sector more competitive;

46.

believes, when it comes to labelling and optional certification systems, that multiannual national strategic plans provide an up to date picture, a detailed overview of the state of play, as well as promote uniformity at EU level;

47.

hopes that the strategic guidelines for the sustainable development of aquaculture in the EU will stress the role that can be played by producers' organisations and coastal action groups in working together to promote aquaculture production and the regions where it takes place; these are areas in which the regions can lend practical support;

48.

considers, when it comes to the traceability of products and short food supply chains, that the Member States and the regions should capitalise on the positive experience garnered by the farming sector and promote its application to aquaculture companies so as to boost their competitiveness;

49.

considers that local management plans for fisheries should be examined with a view to generating potential synergies with the aquaculture sector, given that they tackle issues such as nursery areas, the seasonal nature of production, market outlets, processing units formerly active in the fisheries sector, etc.;

50.

would stress the importance of devoting as much attention as possible to the contribution that demand for organic produce, which is growing constantly, can make in terms of sectoral growth;

51.

endorses the parcelling out of targets (for the Member States, the Commission, and the Aquaculture Advisory Council); the target for Member States could also include making more of the local public/private partnerships that set up coastal action groups, which can contribute to the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector;

52.

congratulates the Commission on having heeded the Committee's recommendation (put forward in CdR20/2003) to set up a separate Aquaculture Advisory Committee to provide decision makers with information. Also reiterates that the Committee ‘is willing to serve as a forum and as a guarantor for ensuring public involvement and information on aquaculture issues, so as to contribute [...] to better governance in the aquaculture sector’ (2).