The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drawn up by Pedro GUERREIRO (GUE/NGL, PT) following the Commission's report of 29 September 2006 on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products . The resolution was adopted by 379 votes for, 30 against and 227 abstentions.

Members welcomed the Commission's decision to undertake an in-depth evaluation of the existing COM in fisheries and aquaculture products, but regretted the delay of almost a year in submitting the evaluation report. It was necessary, as a matter of urgency, to carry out a far-reaching revision of the COM in fisheries products in order to boost its contribution to guaranteeing incomes in the sector, ensuring market stability, improving the marketing of fisheries products and increasing the value added generated. The Commission was asked submit a communication on the guidelines and a proposal for the revision of the COM in fisheries products, taking account of the proposals set out in the resolution. Parliament stressed the need to involve the main economic agents in the sector, especially fishermen and their representative organisations, in the process of revision of the COM in fisheries products, especially during the present evaluation period.

The contribution of the COM in fisheries products to the sector has fallen, especially since the 2000 revision. Members felt that the reversal of this trend, notably by a significant reinforcement of financial resources, must be one of the main objectives of a future revision of the COM in fisheries products, thus enabling it to guarantee Community funding at an adequate level for the fisheries sector's needs. They noted that the existing intervention mechanisms were characterised by a high level of concentration, and called on the Commission to determine whether these mechanisms were the most suitable ones and whether they were sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the existing structures of production/marketing in the Member States, in order to improve the marketing of fish and ensure a fair income for producers. They also believed it essential to provide increased funding for the COM in fishery products in the forthcoming revision.

Parliament stated that the compensatory payment for tuna should be extended, and also called on the Commission to introduce a compensatory payment for sardines, as Parliament had previously asked.

The resolution stressed the importance of labelling and of accurate consumer information, with a view to boosting the quality and value added of fisheries products. Commercial designations, notably for imported products, needed to be examined and checked to ensure that consumers were not misled. The Commission was asked to accelerate the process of ecological certification of fishery products, since this was vital if competition between economic agents within and outside the EU were to take place on an equitable footing.

Members emphasised the need for the Structural Funds to contribute to the modernisation and creation of support infrastructures for producers in the context of production/marketing, covering units for refrigeration, processing, transport and marketing/distribution. They also emphasised that the intervention mechanisms must take account of the increased durability of fisheries products, and called for greater support for the improvement of the on-board handling of fish, especially investment in refrigeration and packaging systems and the improvement of on-board health and safety.

Parliament went on to stress the need for reinforcing the mechanisms of support, especially financial, for promoting the concentration of supply, notably via the funding of producers' organisations, and above all for small-scale coastal and traditional fisheries. The operational programmes should ensure - with suitable financial support -the possibility of the producers' organisations marketing their products directly to boost the value added of fisheries products. The Regulation should be suitably amended. Parliament also called for an amendment in order to maintain the direct link of aid to the producers' organisations in the Community budget, while also opening up the possibility of complementary aids in support of the operational programmes on the part of the Member States.

The resolution recommended that the Commission should evaluate the consequences of relations with third countries, and notably the impact of imports on prices at the initial point of sale. It called on the Commission to take a firmer line in its evaluation of external trade relations, especially when activating the WTO safeguard mechanisms so as not to compromise the objectives of Article 33 of the Treaty. It was vital to ensure the application to imported fisheries products sold on the internal market of the same rules and requirements as those applied to Community fisheries products, e.g. in terms of labelling, phytosanitary rules or the prohibition on the Community market of fisheries products under the minimum sizes authorised for Community products.

The Committee on Fisheries adopted a report drawn up by Pedro GUERREIRO (GUE/NGL, PT) following the Commission's report to the Council and the European Parliament of 29 September 2006 on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products .

Members welcomed the Commission's decision to undertake an in-depth evaluation of the existing COM in fisheries and aquaculture products, but regretted the delay of almost a year in submitting the evaluation report. It was necessary, as a matter of urgency, to carry out a far-reaching revision of the COM in fisheries products in order to boost its contribution to guaranteeing incomes in the sector, ensuring market stability, improving the marketing of fisheries products and increasing the value added generated. The Commission was asked submit a communication on the guidelines and a proposal for the revision of the COM in fisheries products, taking account of the proposals set out in the report.

The contribution of the COM in fisheries products to the sector has fallen, especially since the 2000 revision. Members felt that the reversal of this trend, notably by a significant reinforcement of financial resources, must be one of the main objectives of a future revision of the COM in fisheries products, thus enabling it to guarantee Community funding at an adequate level for the fisheries sector's needs. They noted that the existing intervention mechanisms were characterised by a high level of concentration, and called on the Commission to determine whether these mechanisms were the most suitable ones and whether they were sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the existing structures of production/marketing in the Member States, in order to improve the marketing of fish and ensure a fair income for producers. They also believed it essential to provide increased funding for the COM in fishery products in the forthcoming revision.

The Committee stated that the compensatory payment for tuna should be extended, and also called on the Commission to introduce a compensatory payment for sardines, as Parliament had previously asked.

The report stressed the importance of labelling and of accurate consumer information, with a view to boosting the quality and value added of fisheries products. Commercial designations, notably for imported products, needed to be examined and checked to ensure that consumers were not misled. The Commission was asked to accelerate the process of ecological certification of fishery products, since this was vital if competition between economic agents within and outside the EU were to take place on an equitable footing.

Members emphasised the need for the Structural Funds to contribute to the modernisation and creation of support infrastructures for producers in the context of production/marketing, covering units for refrigeration, processing, transport and marketing/distribution. They also emphasised that the intervention mechanisms must take account of the increased durability of fisheries products, and called for greater support for the improvement of the on-board handling of fish, especially investment in refrigeration and packaging systems and the improvement of on-board health and safety.

The Committee went on to stress the need for reinforcing the mechanisms of support, especially financial, for promoting the concentration of supply, notably via the funding of producers' organisations, and above all for small-scale coastal and traditional fisheries. The operational programmes should ensure - with suitable financial support -the possibility of the producers' organisations marketing their products directly to boost the value added of fisheries products. And the Regulation should be suitably amended. The Committee also called for an amendment in order to maintain the direct link of aid to the producers' organisations in the Community budget, while also opening up the possibility of complementary aids in support of the operational programmes on the part of the Member States.

The report recommended that the Commission should evaluate the consequences of relations with third countries, and notably the impact of imports on prices at the initial point of sale. It called on the Commission to take a firmer line in its evaluation of external trade relations, especially when activating the WTO safeguard mechanisms so as not to compromise the objectives of Article 33 of the Treaty. It was vital to ensure the application to imported fisheries products sold on the internal market of the same rules and requirements as those applied to Community fisheries products, e.g. in terms of labelling, phytosanitary rules or the prohibition on the Community market of fisheries products under the minimum sizes authorised for Community products.

PURPOSE: Commission report on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.

CONTENT: the Commission presents this report following Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000, which requires a report on the implementation of this Regulation. It is based upon stocktaking of the application of the common organisation of the markets ("the CMO"). Moreover, the Commission services organised consultations by way of questionnaires and received responses from 22 Member States and 3 stakeholders.

The CMO was the first component of the Common Fisheries Policy ("the CFP”). Ever since, it has become one of the CFP pillars. The CMO was created to provide market stability and to guarantee a fair income for producers.

The current CMO laid down in Regulation 104/2000 has moved away from a mere intervention system and now lays more emphasis on sustainability-supportive fishing and marketing activities. The CMO is run on the basis of 23 implementing Regulations. The 2003 Act of Accession introduced sprat and dolphin-fish and added new marketing sizes for Baltic herring.

The Commission examines in this report a number of issues, such as common marketing standards, consumer information, producer organisations, interbranch organisations, prices and intervention, and trade with third countries.

The main conclusions of the report are as follows:

- the policy to reduce the levels of intervention has proved to be effective. The expenses derived from withdrawals have decreased in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 104/2000. A steady shift from wasteful withdrawals to carry-over operations can be observed. Recourse to intervention very much differs with the Member States;

- the operation of the CMO has confirmed the important role of Producer Organisations. The introduction of operational programmes as a tool for balancing supply and demand has been well received by both Member States and Pos;

- the introduction of inter-branch organisations was not a success. This may reflect an unsatisfactory co-operation between the different operators of the marketing chain. In 2005 there were only 4 organisations recognised in 3 Member States;

- market prices have not followed trends in production costs in spite of the establishment of conservation measures and recovery plans for a number of species. This makes the balancing out of the objectives laid down in Article 33 of the Treaty even more complex;

- the Community market is increasingly dependent on imports from third countries in order to satisfy the needs of consumers and processing industry.

This document constitutes a report from the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation 104/2000/EC on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, and is made pursuant to Article 41 of that Regulation. It is based upon stocktaking of the application of the common organisation of the markets ("the CMO"). The current CMO laid down in Regulation 104/2000 has moved away from a mere intervention system and now lays more emphasis on sustainability-supportive fishing and marketing activities. The CMO is run on the basis of 23 implementing Regulations.

Marketing Standards: t he common marketing standards are essential for the proper functioning of the internal market and the intervention mechanisms. Regulation 2406/96/EC excludes products of freshness category B from financial compensation for withdrawals. A Commission working paper has confirmed that the improvement of product quality was mainly related to the decrease in landings of category B products. The observance of marketing standards varies significantly with the Member States. The implementation depends largely on the volumes of landings: in coastal fisheries with reduced amounts, fish is usually sorted using traditional practices. The application of the standards improves where producer organisations (POs) are involved in controls performed in single points like auctions. With the refinement of applicable conservation measures, the relationship between marketing standards and minimum biological sizes is an issue which may need to be revisited.

Producer Organisations: t he operation of POs has contributed to the sustainable use of resources and the improvement of marketing conditions. The involvement of POs in intervention and fisheries management varies with the Member States. Four Member States applied the extension of PO’s rules to non-member producers. The measures most frequently extended were catch restriction as well as a ban on landings and first sale. The observance of certain withdrawal prices was also applied in Belgium and Italy. Despite an extension of withdrawal rules, no Member State granted compensation to non-members for products which could not be marketed. The operational programmes have contributed to improve the organisation of POs’ activities and their financial returns. Yet there are factors outside the control of POs which may affect their production and marketing possibilities, i.e. climatic and biological fluctuations, conservation measures. The operational programmes provide POs with anticipatory instruments and thus more responsibilities in the management of fishing and marketing operations. They also allow national authorities to follow-up the fisheries activities of the POs all along the year. Available information shows that operational programmes have been working in a satisfactory manner. The POs very seldom revised the programmes in spite of the bad market situation and increased withdrawals for certain products during 2001-2004. In order to play a more effective role on the markets, the programmes should focus more on measures to spread out supplies throughout the fishing year and the establishment of links between producers and downstream stages of the marketing chain.

Interbranch Organisations: in 2005 there were only 4 organisations recognised in 3 Member States: 2 in Spain (catch and aquaculture sectors), one in France (aquaculture) and one in Italy (catch and aquaculture). The reasons for this low number are not entirely clear and may be due to poor co-operation between the different sub-sectors of the value chain. The extension of rules to non-members has not been applied yet.

Prices and Intervention: p rices for many important commercial species have not followed production cost trends in recent years. For a number of whitefish species, for example, average first-sale prices stagnated or even decreased between 2000 and the first half of 2005. The increasing share of imports on the EU market for fish and the development of aquaculture are often blamed for stagnating or falling fish prices. However, there is no evidence for that. Actually, the contribution to reducing fishers’ income is probably less important than other factors, such as the concentration of sales in big distribution chains and greater competition between fish and other food products, putting considerable pressure on wholesalers to cut their prices and profit margins. This reverberates all along the market chain but hits primary producers. The CMO has largely reduced the overall level of intervention. This is reflected in a moderate yearly expenditure between EUR 9 million and EUR 12 million for 2001-2004. These figures are significantly lower than ECU 33 million reached in the 1990s.

With regard to withdrawals, the CMO has decreased the compensation for fish withdrawn from the market. Withdrawals are intended to occasional excess production which the market cannot absorb. During 2001-2004, the quantities withdrawn accounted for less than 2% of the production of pelagic species and around 1% of the production of whitefish. Yet withdrawals of white fish species with reduced Community production increased significantly in 2002 and 2003. In the context of decreasing stocks, the withdrawal of species subject to conservation measures can be questioned, in particular if the fish taken off the market is destined to destruction.

The CMO has substantially increased the aid for processing and storage of products with a view to their reintroduction into the market. The carry-over operations contribute to reduce the destruction of fish and to enhance the returns of products. The procedures for granting the aid are more complex than those concerning withdrawals. The grant of advances is related to the aid but is not linked to the value of the stored product. In certain circumstances, the possibility of withdrawing fish permanently from the market could be more attractive to POs than the processing and storage of products.

The report comes to the following conclusions:

1. The policy to reduce the levels of intervention has proved to be effective. The expenses derived from withdrawals have decreased in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 104/2000.

2. A steady shift from wasteful withdrawals to carry-over operations can be observed. Recourse to intervention very much differs with the Member States.

3. The operation of the CMO has confirmed the important role of POs. The introduction of operational programmes as a tool for balancing supply and demand has been well received by both Member States and POs.

4. The introduction of inter-branch organisations was no success. This may reflect an unsatisfactory co-operation between the different operators of the marketing chain.

5. Market prices have not followed trends in production costs in spite of the establishment of conservation measures and recovery plans for a number of species. This makes the balancing out of the objectives laid down in Article 33 of the Treaty even more complex.

6. The Community market is increasingly dependent on imports from third countries in order to satisfy the needs of consumers and processing industry.