The opinion went beyond the scope of the Commission’s proposal for a set of accompanying socio-economic measures for the restructuring of the fisheries sector, examining in somewhat wider terms the impact of measures taken under the common fisheries policy and making observations of a more fundamental nature. The over-capacity of the fisheries fleet was incompatible with the decline in resources. The opinion was being expressed in the present context of diversification of the fisheries sector and retraining of the workforce. The opinion underlined the fact that the basic resources of the fisheries industries were often located some distance away from those regions that depended on them for revenue and employment. The nature of this link between a regional industry and its resource base was not at all conventional and this greatly complicated the situation affecting this sector. The opinion went on to denounce the centralised nature of the industry, which ran the risk of not being as sensitive to regional needs as those systems that closely combined ‘users’ with the implementation of decisions. There was also a need to attach greater importance to the differences that existed between the various coastal regions and their ecological systems. It was to be expected that the measures taken under the common fisheries policy would have an unpredictable and arbitrary impact on the territory of the Community. While the measures of support being provided were likely to improve matters in the short term, it appeared nevertheless that a more fundamental approach was needed. Any actions initiated should take greater account of capital resources management and incorporate this aspect more fully into the decisions taken, and should also include the users in the decision making process. In this way it was likely that respect for the regulations would increase in line with the level of involvement of ‘users’ in the regional management process. Finally, any solution in which responsibility for policy implementation was devolved to local level could constitute a more effective and more viable interpretation of the ‘principle of subsidiarity’, according to which responsibility was to be divided among the most appropriate levels, and could lead to greater success in achieving the general objectives of the common fisheries policy. The Committee of the Regions also called for new fisheries rights for Community fishermen operating in non-EU waters and recommended increasing the budget allocation for measures in favour of fishermen as provided by the FIFG fisheries fund and the PESCA initiative.

The Council adopted by a qualified majority - with the United Kingdom delegation voting against and the Swedish delegation abstaining - the Regulation providing for new socio­-economic accompanying measures linked to the restructuring of the fisheries sector in order to assist older fishermen (financing of early retirement). The Regulation, which amends Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, enables Member States to call on the financial assistance of the FIFG for the following measures: - part-financing of national early retirement schemes for fishermen, provided that the age of the beneficiaries of the measure is not more than ten years from the legal retirement age or the beneficiaries are aged at least 55 and the beneficiaries can show that they have worked for at least 10 years as fishermen; - granting individual compensatory payments to fishermen on the basis of an eligible cost limited to ECU 7 000 per individual beneficiary, provided the vessel on which the beneficiaries of the measure were employed has been the object of measures permanently stopping its activities or permanently transferring it to a third country in the context of the creation of a joint enterprise. No one fisherman may accumulate the benefits of the above two measures.

The rapporteur noted that the Commission proposal envisaged three aid measures: subsidising the early retirement schemes of the Member States; granting compensatory payments to fishermen for permanent cessation of fishing activities; and granting aid to compensate for unemployment due to bad weather or market fluctuations. The report considered that the measures proposed were only a first step. Commissioner BONINO agreed with this comment and stated that they had to go even further. As far as the criticisms of the proposal were concerned, she stated that as the allocation of Structural Funds had been decided in Edinburgh, it was not possible to release additional funds. Mrs BONINO also highlighted the non-compulsory nature of the Structural Funds, which had been a precondition for adoption by the Council. Finally, as regards the amendment calling for compensatory payments to be calculated on an overall basis, the Commission felt that both versions (that of the Commission and that of Parliament) had the same meaning. Amendments Nos 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 were rejected.

According to the ESC, the measures proposed by the Commission were a first step towards establishing a genuine social policy in the fisheries sector affected by significant fleet restructuring. Aid for early retirement went some way to resolving the existing problems although the ESC felt that the scope of this aid was too limited.