SPECIAL REPORT No 3/93 concerning the implementation of the measures for the restructuring, modernization and adaptation of the capacities of fishing fleets in the Community together with the Commission's replies (94/C 2/01)

1. INTRODUCTION

General background

The fisheries sector in the European Community

Economic and budgetary significance

1.1. The FAO statistics (see Table 1.1) show that, of the total world catch of 99,5 million tonnes of fisheries products in 1989, the volume landed by the Member States' fishing fleets, namely some 7 million tonnes, was significantly lower than the volume of Japanese, USSR and Chinese (11 million tonnes) landings, but higher than the figure for the United States.

1.2. According to the data used by the Commission(1) ()

, the Community fleets' production in 1989 amounted to 5,74 million tonnes, for an estimated value of some 6,200 Mio ECU. These figures represent almost 0,4 % of the Community's gross domestic product and correspond to around 260 000 fishermen's jobs (0,2 % of the total working population). The following considerations put the significance and extent of these figures into perspective:

(a)firstly, for each sea-going job there are around four or five land-based jobs in both upstream (shipbuilding and maintenance) and downstream sectors (processing and marketing fisheries products);

(b)secondly, fishing activities are concentrated along the coast, and more particularly in the ports, where in the absence of other economic factors, they may represent a key element in terms of production, income and employment;

(c)finally, as regards the importance in relation to employment and contribution to gross internal product, varies significantly in terms of absolute and relative value, from one Member State to another: the value of landings as a percentage of GDP and the number of fishermen in the total working population is more than 0,5 % in Greece, Spain and Portugal and less than 0,1 % in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom(2) ()

.

1.3. In budget figures, the appropriations allocated by the Community to the fishing sector between 1987 and 1990 represent 1 341 Mio ECU (229 Mio ECU in 1987 and 446 Mio ECU in 1990). This total is made up of the following:

(a)commitments relating to the common market organization: 112 Mio ECU, i.e. an average of 28 Mio ECU for each financial year;

(b)commitments relating to the policy of fishing agreements: 459 Mio ECU (these increased significantly over the period, from 59 Mio ECU in 1987 to 173 Mio ECU in 1990);

(c)appropriations earmarked for the structural policy: 738 Mio ECU, which can be broken down under two main headings:

(i)appropriations intended for the various forms of aid to the fishing fleet: 435 Mio ECU (101 in 1987, 133 in 1990);

(ii)appropriations for aquaculture, processing and marketing of fisheries products: 303 Mio ECU (50 Mio ECU in 1987, 100 Mio ECU in 1990);

(d)finally, from 1987 to 1990, approximately 30 Mio ECU were entered in the budget for control, surveillance, conservation and research.

The report which follows examines the use of the appropriations earmarked for the three main forms of aid to the fishing fleet. The construction and modernization of fishing vessels take the form of direct aid, whilst aid for capacity adjustment is implemented by way of reimbursements to Member States.

Supplying the Community market

1.4. The Community market is supplied by means of imports and by landings from the shipping fleets which fly the Community flag (2,6 million tonnes in 1990). In the case of supplies provided by the vessels which fly the Community flag, a distinction must be made between landings of fish from Community waters and those from waters which are subject to the jurisdiction of non-Member States or are governed by international agreements on the management of resources. In the case of fish caught in Community waters, the volume is a very direct function of the resources available and the decisions taken within the framework of resources management.

1.5. On the basis of the available information concerning the fisheries sector, including the trend of the landing statistics and the various communications from the Commission(3) ()

, it is possible to put forward a global hypothesis, rather than making a detailed breakdown by fishing zones and species, which might reveal contradictory situations and would certainly show fluctuations in time, and to suggest that, because of internal resources available, there has been a decline in catches, especially in the case of North Sea roundfish. Even if this decline in volume has sometimes been more than offset by a substantial rise in prices, the sector of the fishing industry which exploits the stocks in Community waters is at present experiencing varying degrees of economic difficulties, for various reasons, which are partly related to the stock situation.

1.6. In order to overcome the limitations imposed by the potential of Community stocks, as well as for historical reasons and for reasons connected with the policy of cooperation with third countries, the Community has developed a policy of fisheries agreements, especially in the last decade, to give Community fishermen access to the waters covered by international resource management agreements and the waters of third countries whose economic exclusion zones were extended following the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 30 April 1982). In the absence of reliable statistics, the proportion caught in international or non-Community waters under agreements is estimated to be one quarter of the total Community catch of fish for human consumption.

1.7. Finally, imports constitute a not insignificant proportion of the supply to Community markets, especially the industrial sector which processes and markets fish products. In this area the last five years have been characterized by a virtual doubling of imports, in terms of both volume and value (see Table 1.2), whereas exports have remained stable. Thus, in 1989 the Community balance of trade in fish products for human consumption represents a deficit of 1,4 million tonnes with a value of almost 4,6 Mio ECU.

The role of resources management and conservation

The objectives of the common fisheries policy

1.8. According to Article 38(1) of the Treaty of Rome, fishery products are included in the term 'agricultural products' and the common policy pursued in the fisheries sector has the same objectives as those which Article 39 of the Treaty assigns to the common agricultural policy, namely:

(a)to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilization of the factors of production, in particular labour;

(b)to ensure a fair standard of living for producers;

(c)to stabilize markets;

(d)to assure the availability of supplies;

(e)to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

1.9. At the level of the common fisheries policy (CFP), these objectives are, to a very large extent, pursued through the policy of managing and conserving fish stocks. Fish stocks are a common good, i.e. they are not owned by anyone, and the only natural limits to competition between economic agents with a view to exploiting this resource are the cost of the initial investment as a function of the expected profit from the sale of fish catches. In fact, there is no reason why, for a given species or group of stocks, the market should arrive at an equilibrium price compatible with the level of depletion of the resource which is permissible if the continuing availability of that resource is not to be jeopardized. The aim of the policy of managing and conserving fish stocks is to maintain the stocks of these resources at a level sufficient to guarantee the economic viability of the fishing sector. In order to achieve this objective, on the one hand the volume of stock depletion must be limited, in such a way that the mortality rate as a result of fishing does not jeopardize the long-term existence of the stocks, and, secondly, the catch capacity must be adjusted to safeguard the economic viability of the sector.

1.10. The main provisions dealing with the management and conservation of resources are as follows:

(a)Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983(4) ()

, which seeks to control fishing, especially by limiting catches by determining, in principle on the basis of scientific opinion, total admissible catches (TAC) and allocating them by means of national quotas between the Member States;

(b)technical conservation measures, which lay down rules in terms of the type of fishing, region, species and fishing equipment used;

(c)supervision of fishing activity, with the aim of ensuring that the conservation rules are correctly applied.

1.11. The implementation of all these rules, and the importance that has been attached to perfecting them over the years, is both a reflection and an expression in regulatory terms of the overall and/or differentiated evolution of the stocks of resources in Community waters, as well as the consequence of surplus fishing capacity in the Community fleet, given the fish stocks available.

The concepts of fishing capacity and fishing effort and overcapacity in the Community fishing fleet

The concept of fishing capacity

1.12. The capacity of a fishing fleet can be defined as the set of factors which combine to produce mortality by fishing in a stock of resources when the fleet is exercising its activities fully. Among these factors are, first of all, the number and efficiency of the ships, which can be apprehended more precisely by factors which may or may not be quantifiable.

1.13. Among the quantifiable factors, the primary ones are the length, the tonnage and the power. The efficiency and impact of these factors are, to a considerable extent, a function of factors whose incidence is more difficult to measure, such as the fishing equipment, use of electronic equipment and the knowhow of the fishermen. Thus, in the absence of any quantitative changes (number of ships, tonnage and engine rating), the capacity of a fishing fleet may be increased significantly in different ways, including the incorporation of more effective fishing equipment or the installation of electronic equipment to facilitate the detection of resources.

The concept of fishing effort

1.14. The concept of fishing effort differs from that of fishing capacity by taking account of the way in which the component factors of fishing activity are actually employed in the activity of fishing in order to assess the mortality produced among a given population. For example, limiting the duration of fishing activity or the use of technical measures concerning fishing equipment (size of mesh, type and length of nets)) have a direct influence on the fishing effort.

1.15. By its nature, the management of resources by using the concept of fishing effort aims to limit the impact on fish resources of a fishing capacity which might spontaneously be used at full power. In that sense the concept of fishing effort is inseparable from a whole battery of control measures intended to guarantee that the use of existing fishing capacity is restricted to a level compatible with ensuring the survival and rational long-term exploitation of existing fish stocks.

Overcapacity in the Community fishing fleet.

1.16. In view of what has been said above, a situation of overcapacity could be deemed to exist whenever the level of the stocks of fish resources makes it impossible for the existing fleet of fishing vessels to operate at full power. In practice, although the existence of restrictive measures such as TAC and quotas, technical rules on fishing equipment and rules which place limitations on the duration of fishing activity (number of days at sea) for certain types of fishing are clearly irrefutable evidence of overcapacity, it is very difficult to quantify the latter.

1.17. Establishing overcapacity in global terms thus covers situations which vary widely from one type of fishing to another, because less-exploited stocks exist side-by-side with stocks which are fully exploited, or even, in some cases, substantially over-exploited. Similarly, the condition and level of a stock may vary significantly over time as a result of biological and environmental mechanisms which are as yet largely unexplained.

1.18. Be that as it may, both the work of scientists responsible for analysing the condition of the stocks which are subject to quotas and the conclusions of a group of independent experts point to a substantial excess capacity in the Community fishing fleet, which can be estimated to be of the order of 40 %(5) ()

on average overall for all forms of Community fishing. Although the factors at the origin of this situation are to be sought among all the miscellaneous factors which make up the capacity of the fishing fleet, including aid from public funds, it must be said that since the CFP was instituted the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources.

The structural policy framework in the fishing sector

The place of the structural policy in the common fisheries policy (CFD)

1.19. The conduct and definition of the structural policy in the fishing sector are closely dependent on the level and importance of the fish stocks available for exploitation by the existing fishing capacity. Designed and implemented as a way of controlling fishing capacity, the structural policy cannot be divorced from an appraisal of the situation of fish resources, their greater or lesser availability and their accessibility. At the same time, it cannot be conducted by reference to the Community context in isolation, because the different Community fishing fleets are competing against other, non-Community fleets. In that sense, one of the objectives of any structural policy must be to help to reinforce the various Community fishing fleets.

1.20. In a situation of over-capacity the objective of adapting the fleet to existing resources may also conflict with that of providing sorely needed support for the fleet in order to preserve its competitiveness within an international framework. Similarly, a situation of over-capacity inevitably entails attaching particular importance to reducing fishing in order to ensure the long-term survival of the stocks which form the basis of any fishing activity.

1.21. Any statutory regulation of fishing effort has consequences at two levels:

(a)firstly, public management of the fishing effort must produce a cost in terms of control for the Community and the level of that cost rises, a priori, as the fishing capacity which must remain unutilized rises;

(b)secondly, despite the increase in real prices, which partially offsets the regression in the volume of catches, the under-employment of fishing capacity (which is the necessary consequence of managing and controlling the fishing effort), affects the economic results of fishing undertakings, which in turn have less potential for modernization and renewal and thus become more dependent on public assistance.

1.22. In view of this, the structural policy must seek to adapt the capacity of the existing fleet to the volume of exploitable resources without jeopardizing their medium and long-term survival, which means that, ideally, the capacity objective of the fleet should be fixed at a level where the fleet can pursue its fishing activities at full power. The attainment of this objective becomes increasingly necessary in the perspective of the year 2002, which is when the present Community system of conserving and managing fish resources ends(6) ()

, after which all Community fleets will be allowed free access to all Community waters and by that date the size of the Community fleet ought to be in line with the exploitable fish resources.

1.23. Finally, the possibilities and prospects offered to Community fishing undertakings in international waters under international fishing agreements, as well as the inevitable constraints and developments which result from both the emergence of new producer countries and the internationalization of concern for the management and conservation of resources, are elements which the structural policy must take into account, amongst other things, so that the level of the fishing fleet's capacity can be assessed. Likewise, the Community sea-produce industries are finding themselves increasingly dependent on imports and this is combined with a certain tendency towards decentralization, under the encouragement of the new aid instruments in the form of joint ventures, temporary associations of undertakings and the redeployment operations(7) ()

which also have a direct effect on capacity. The development of this approach is largely, but not exclusively, the result of the declaration of a state of overcapacity in the Community fishing fleet and the emergence of the new law of the sea and the resultant changes in the conditions for exploiting fish resources. In this respect, the propensity towards exploiting exclusive economic areas on the part of neighbouring states, and ships sailing under the flag of these states, will inevitably lead to a yet more radical re-evaluation of the place and role of the Community's fishing fleets in international fish production and fleets.

The framework provided by the structural policy regulations in the fishing sector

1.24. Since 1971, when Council Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70 of 20 October 1970(8) ()

entered into force, the structural policy has been part of the common fisheries policy. In the beginning, the EAGGF Guidance Section aid was primarily intended for the construction and modernization of coastal and pelagic fishing vessels, and for the marketing and processing of the fish. Over the years this aid has been extended to include the restructuring of the coastal fleet, as well as aquaculture.

1.25. The adoption in 1983 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2908/83 of 4 October 1983(9) ()

concerning joint restructuring, modernization and development measures in the fisheries sector, as well as the development of the aquaculture sector, marked an important stage because thereafter the structural policy's scope for action in the fishing sector became part of the medium-term planning framework: the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) set out for each Member State the capacity objective to be attained and describe the resources to be used. At the same time, Council Directive 83/515/EEC of 4 October 1983(10) ()

concerning certain measures to adopt capacities in the fisheries sector set up an initial budgetary funding to promote capacity withdrawal.

1.26. The regulations that were adopted by the Council at the time of the latest enlargement of the Community form an integral part of the pursuit and enrichment of the common structural policy in the fishing sector. For example, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 of 22 September 1986, defining characteristics for fishing vessels(11) ()

, pursues the objective of standardizing the conditions on which fishing activity operates within the Community, by defining the characteristics, especially the physical characteristics (length, breadth, tonnage, engine power) of fishing vessels. For its part, Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector(12) ()

fused together and amended all the provisions of the 1983 texts, as well as those of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2909/83 of 4 October 1983(13) ()

concerning arrangements to promote experimental fishing and cooperation in fisheries matters as part of joint ventures. The Regulation will remain in force for ten years from 1 January 1987 and the cost of carrying out the measures covered by the Regulation in the period 1987-1991 was provisionally estimated to be 800 Mio ECU, which is the amount that was actually committed in that period.

1.27. As had been envisaged at the time when Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 was adopted, certain implementing procedures were reviewed when Council Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 was adopted on 20 December 1990(14) ()

. The Regulation came into force on 1 January 1991 and the object of the amendments which it introduced was:

(a)to reduce the amount of aid provided for the construction of new ships and the modernization of fishing vessels, except in the case of ships less than nine metres in length intended for the small-scale fisheries sector, which become eligible for Community aid;

(b)to increase the aid for capacity withdrawal, including the scrapping of vessels;

(c)to reduce the strain of fishing in Community waters by promoting redeployment measures and the creation of joint ventures to facilitate the redeployment of some of the fishing vessels in the Community fleet whilst contributing to the objective of supplying the market.

1.28. The various types of structural aid which are given to the fishing fleet under the CFP in connection with the restructuring objective break down into two main categories:

(a)aid which aims to renew and extend the fleet's method of operation in order to relieve the pressure on the Community's available domestic resources. This consists mainly of aid for exploratory fishing, redeployment operations, temporary associations of undertakings and joint ventures;

(b)aid which has a direct effect on existing capacity: this includes aid for the construction of fishing vessels, capacity adjustment aid (final cessation premiums and temporary laying-up) and modernization aid.

Intensity and limit of Community action in the sphere of the structural policy in the fisheries sector

1.29. The basic principle behind the aid which is provided from public funds within the framework of the fisheries structural policy is that of joint funding, i.e. the combination of national and Community budgetary resources. The amount to be provided from the Community budget for the various aid measures provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 is precisely defined, either by reference to the amount of eligible investment or, within the limit of a specified ceiling, by reference to the aid granted by the Member State. Except in the case of capacity withdrawal, national aid must be within the limits laid down by the Community regulations, but this does not preclude the possibility that, for certain measures, the financial aid provided by the Member States may be modulated within a given range, provided that it is below an overall ceiling for public aid by reference to the amount of the eligible investment which the Community is responsible for determining.

1.30. In all cases, as with similar structural measures in the agriculture sector, the persons engaged in fishing sector activities are not eligible for the Community measures in the absence of a national aid system. This situation may give rise to the possibility (which has been confirmed in practice) of unequal access to Community aid, since such aid may vary according to type and the State concerned, bearing in mind the national policies pursued by the Member States.

Objectives and scope of the enquiry

Field of enquiry

1.31. The framework within which structural policy in the fishing sector is conceived and evolves is defined by the situation of the fishing fleet and changes in that fleet in view of available fish resources. The necessary objective of reinforcing the fishing fleet in the context of international competition has to be reconciled with the objective of bringing existing capacity into line with the catch potential, given that the choice of measures and the intensity of the action to be promoted can only be achieved through a sound knowledge of the initial situation of the Community fishing fleet.

1.32. In view of this, the first section of the enquiry was devoted to a review of the period 1987-1991 and the way in which the measures designed to improve information concerning the fleet and its capacity were implemented during that time. The review first considered the reliability and degree of harmonization of the capacity measurement units, the present situation with regard to the fishing register and the management and supervisory instruments available to the Commission.

1.33. Secondly, since the entire structural policy for the fleet is implemented within the framework of multiannual guidance programmes (MGPs), which specify the objectives to be achieved and define the means required, the enquiry examined the implementation of the MGPs as instruments for managing the structural policy, their current situation and their suitability for the objectives pursued.

1.34. Among the different forms of structural aid employed within the framework of the CFP, and in view of the distinction drawn in paragraph 1.28, the audits were concerned with aid which immediately affects existing capacity, taking account of the level of implementation and its implementation over a long period in almost all the Member States. Only projects which form part of the MAGPs adopted specially for the French overseas departments(15) ()

were omitted from the audits as the programme in question provides for the expansion of the fishing fleets concerned. The second part of the report discusses aid for the construction and modernization of fishing vessels, whilst the final part examines the capacity adjustment aid more closely.

1.35. The execution of these forms of aid was examined in connection with the global objective of capacity adaptation as it results from the MAGPs and the objective of harmonizing the data concerning the Community fishing fleet, as it derives from the application of Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 defining the characteristics of fishing vessels.

Progress

1.36. The audits were carried out after an examination of the Commission's appraisal and payment files in respect of the operations financed between 1987 and 1990, as regards both the construction and modernization projects and the capacity adjustment aid. The observations and findings arising from the enquiry are based on the results of a review at the Commission of more than half the projects which received aid during the period in question. On the basis of this scrutiny, the Court then conducted on-the-spot audits of a smaller number of projects in all the Member States at both central and local level.

1.37. In accordance with Article 206a(3) of the Treaty, the supreme national audit institutions of Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom took part in the audits carried out by the Court. These joint audits were organized and carried out on the spot in close collaboration with the national audit institutions. They constitute a common approach in the area of the execution of public expenditure and were carried out on the basis of joint preparatory work, each institution being entirely free to use and follow up the results of the audit in accordance with its respective remit.

Objectives

1.38. Essentially, the aim of the audits was to discover whether:

(a)the ways in which the various forms of aid are applied are compatible with the regulations on the harmonization of the units of measure used for measuring the capacity of the Community fishing fleet and with the objective of managing and conserving resources;

(b)the expenditure on the various forms of aid makes any contribution towards the global objective of adjusting the capacity of the Community fishing fleet;

(c)the simultaneous use of systems of aid for capacity reduction and for capacity creation is logically compatible with the global objective of adjusting capacity, given the current situation of excess capacity in the Community fishing fleet;

(d)at the level of the individual aid measures, the procedures actually employed on the ground make it possible to achieve the established objective whilst observing the conditions laid down in the regulations and the principles of sound financial management. 2. THE COMMUNITY REGISTER OF FISHING VESSELS AND THE MULTIANNUAL GUIDANCE PROGRAMMES (MAGPs): THE INSTRUMENTS OF INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT

The Community fishing vessel register

The register as an instrument providing information on the Community fishing fleet

2.1. Until Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 entered into force on 1 January 1987, the conception and definition of the structural policy applied to the Community fishing fleet were based on statistics and information supplied by the Member States. Article 5 of the Regulation provided that the Commission was to be given the information needed to establish and maintain a Community register of fishing vessels. This objective was pursued in concrete form by the adoption of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 163/89 of 24 January 1989(16) ()

on the Community register of fishing vessels. Thus, as a result either of transfers of information or of censuses carried out expressly for that purpose, the Commission has an instrument which has gradually come on-stream since the second half of 1991. As a result there has been a marked improvement in its knowledge of the structure and capacity of the Community fleet of fishing vessels.

2.2. The censuses and audit carried out when the Community register was compiled made it possible to pick out existing capacity which was not registered along with anomalies in the data previously supplied to the Commission by the Member States. The data in question were taken into consideration in the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGPs) of the Member States concerned. The creation of the Community fishing vessel register made it possible to establish the unreliability of certain items of information, the correction of which is at the source of the revision of recorded capacity in the initial situations and the end-of-period objectives of certain MAGPs.

The limits of the Community register

2.3. As a method of both supplying precise information regarding the capacity of the Community fishing fleet and monitoring its evolution, the Community register continues to be an instrument that is of little value for the purpose of implementing a structural policy because of the weaknesses which affect the validity of its data and omissions which prevent it from playing more than a very limited role in the monitoring and implementation of aid dispensed within the framework of the structural policy.

Disparities in tonnage measurements.

2.4. As regards the units used to measure the capacity of fishing vessels, as will be seen from the description of measuring units supplied in Annex 1 to the report, the total tonnage of the fishing fleets of all the Member States is in fact a figure of uncertain value, insofar as it is the sum of non-uniform units of measurement. Standardization on the basis of the unit of measurement defined in the Community regulations will inevitably produce a change in the total tonnage registered as compared with the figure registered at present.

2.5. Had the tonnage measurement provisions contained in Regulation (EEC) No 930/86 been applied, all vessels which entered service after 1 January 1987, as well as those that had undergone modification, would have been registered using the Community units. In actual fact, although some Member States (Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands) refer to London Convention tonnage, others used it only for new vessels more than 24 metres long, but continued to register smaller ships, which are far more numerous, according to the customary criteria, which vary from one Member State to the next. As an illustration, two ships with almost identical physical characteristics were built by the same shipyard for shipowners in two different Member States and there was a 60 % difference in the tonnage registered, even though, in both cases, it was expressed in gross registered tonnes (grt).

2.6. The fact that differences of this order are still to be met with is undeniably a weakness which should be remedied without delay. The existing regulations should, in fact, have enabled the Commission to require a uniform tonnage declaration for all fishing vessels which entered service after 1 January 1987. Moreover, in view of the advantages of harmonizing the tonnage measurement of the Community fishing fleet, particularly in the management of fishing agreements and access to waters under the licensing system, the Commission should rigorously enforce the subordination of shipbuilding projects to the establishment of registered tonnage in accordance with the Community regulations. The same approach could be employed in connection with modernization measures, if necessary by bearing the cost, which would, moreover, be limited of remeasuring the ship.

Uncertainty regarding the power criterion

2.7. Although the Community regulations, following the current international standards, adopt a precise definition of engine rating measurement for fishing vessels, the rating given in the fishing vessel register is either the maximum continuous power (ISO standard), or a reduced rating because the engine has been derated or adjusted to comply with the administrative rules on power limitation.

2.8. During the Court's examination of fishing vessel modernization and construction projects, it was found that there is a widespread practice of derating engines, particularly when new engines are being fitted, because it may be impossible to find an engine with the same rating as the engine which is being replaced. In such cases the acceptance of derated engines can be justified on pragmatic grounds and as a way of encouraging competition between engine manufacturers. On the other hand, when a new ship is being built, the installation of a derated engine is justifiable only in terms of the concern to respect the rating specified in the aid application.

2.9. In fact the enquiry showed that in the case of a working ship it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to ensure that the derating device will remain fitted, since any work on an engine is, technically, reversible. In view of the importance which is placed on the engine rating criterion when assessing whether shipbuilding and modernization projects are acceptable in terms of the capacity objectives for the Community fleet, the Commission should take a stricter line on the practice of derating, by accepting for aid projects only adjustments which have been duly certified and carried out in the factory by the engine manufacturer, as it is far more difficult to alter this type of derating.

Certain useful information not available in the register

2.10. According to Regulation (EEC) No 163/89 on the Community fishing vessel register, a set of data concerning any ship catching fish for commercial purposes must be made available to the Commission on a magnetic data-carrier. Such data must include the technical specifications of the vessel, registration details and the types of fishing equipment. Although the register has 21 different headings, it was noted that there is no provision for stating whether or not the vessel has been derated. In view of the importance attaching to the power rating parameter in defining and monitoring the implementation of the capacity adjustment policy, the regulations should be supplemented so that the information concerning any derating is included in the register.

2.11. Similarly, the granting of Community public aid involves for the ships which receive it, certain obligations concerning the supply of fish to the Community market and if those obligations are not respected there may be grounds for requiring the Community aid to be repaid (see also paragraph 2.45). For obvious reasons of checking and monitoring the commitments entered into by aid recipients, the Community fishing vessel register ought to have made provision for a way of identifying the vessels for which aid has been granted, since the Commission has no other way of checking.

The multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP)

Description of the system

Definition

2.12. For the purposes of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, the term 'multiannual guidance programme' (MAGP) means a set of objectives, together with a statement of the means necessary for attaining them, as a guide for the development of the fisheries sector in the overall long-term context (Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) 4028/86). The MAGPs provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 are subject to approval by the Commission and are direct descendents of the MAGPs provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2908/83. The objectives of the latter, which were to be attained by 31 December 1986, formed the basis of reference in determining the objectives to be attained at the end of the period running from 1 January 1987 to 31 December 1991.

2.13. According to the sixth recital of that Regulation, the structural measures must be implemented within the framework of multiannual guidance programmes which ensure that, for each Member State, the community measures are consistent with national measures and that the latter are consistent with the objectives of the common policy. Furthermore, these programmes must be compatible with the objectives and instruments of regional policy and must allow the Commission to assess the overall structural situation at the outset, so that it can assess and define the means which are to be employed and the objectives to be achieved in the medium term.

2.14. Throughout the implementation period the Member States are required to send the Commission all the necessary information and to take all steps necessary to monitor the carrying out of the MAGPs. The programmes are thus the reference device within which the common fisheries policy structural measures are defined, as well as being a means of assessing to what extent the prescribed objectives have been met.

Content

2.15. According to Annex 1 to Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, the 1987-1991 multiannual guidance programmes were to include an evaluation of the importance of the fishing industry in the national economy and in the various regional economies concerned, the initial situation of the fleet, by category of vessel, type of fishing and region, as well as expected developments in the fleet and the investment needed during the period covered by the programme. The programmes were also to include estimates of the probable trend of available fish stocks and in the market for fish products. Finally, they were to provide a survey of the situation of the fleet and fishing capacity at the end of the programme and of the resources to be employed in order to achieve these objectives.

Follow-up criteria

2.16. As with the MAGPs, for the period 1983-1986, tonnage and engine power are the only criteria used to measure the capacity of the Community fishing fleet for the MAGPs provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86. For the period 1987-1991 the decisions adopted by the Commission regarding the programmes submitted by the Member States assigned to each fleet a final objective, providing for a 3 % reduction in tonnage and a 2 % reduction in engine power relative to the objective to be achieved by the end of 1986 under the previous programme. The overall objective of reducing the fleet was to be achieved in successive stages at a rate which varied slightly according to the Member State. Thus, for Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Greece and Portugal the reduction objective set by the initial decisions was to be 20 % achieved at the end of 1988 and 80 % complete by the end of 1990, whilst for the other Member States (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) 10 % of the overall objective was to be achieved by the end of 1988, 30 % by the end of 1989 and 80 % by 31 December 1990.

Implementation

A series of decisions

2.17. An initial series of 11 decisions approving the MAGPs was adopted on 11 December 1987 and amended at least once in December 1988 (the decisions were not published in the case of the Member States which were the subject of a third decision or were published without any change in 1990 or 1991) and again in 1990-1991 in the case of France(17) ()

, Spain(18) ()

and the United Kingdom(19) ()

.

2.18. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the capacity, for each Member State, in terms of tonnage and engine power according to the objectives adopted by the MAGP of the Regulation, the figures as of 1 January 1987 and the objectives as of 21 December 1991 as they appear for each Member State in the decision approving the MAGP initially and in the latest amending Decision adopted by the Commission. Finally, the two end columns in the tables record the results achieved at the end of the period 1987-1991 covered by the MAGPs with the difference relative to the objective set.

Adjusting to reality

2.19. The programmes have been adjusted to reality by means of a succession of amendments to the Decisions approving the MAGPs for the Member States which have been active throughout the period covered by the programmes. For example, the last decision concerning the United Kingdom and Spain was taken six months before the end of the period covered by the MAGPs. Similarly, it was found that at the end of the same period, the capacity of the segment of the Greek inshore fishing fleet still had to be updated. These revisions are essentially due to the inclusion of the following elements.

2.20. The initial decision of 11 December 1987 started from the position of 1 January 1987 and did not take into account the shipbuilding projects which had been authorized under Regulation (EEC) 2908/83 but had not then been completed and commissioned. In view of the time lag, significant capacity came into service during the first two years of the 1987-1991 MAGPs. In almost all the Member States concerned the interim objective that had been set for 31 December 1988 became even less likely to be achieved as the legislative and statutory measures for encouraging capacity reduction (final cessation) were only adopted on a gradual and piecemeal basis by the Member States.

2.21. The fishing capacity which existed but remained unrecorded in the initial programme was shown up firstly by a fuller survey of the fishing capacity which existed in a number of Member States (see paragraph 2.2) and, secondly, because the new MAGPs aimed to cover all the existing fishing capacity, whereas under the previous programme the fishing capacity taken into account in some of the Member States concerned only the fleet which had achieved a certain level of activity.

2.22. Conversely, fishing capacity contained in the reference situations for the initial decisions, especially ships used for transport, aquaculture and shellfish, was excluded in successive decisions from the fishing capacity taken into consideration in determining the final objective for all the Member States for which such a distinction could be made. The same approach was followed in the case of the fishing capacity of the Spanish fleet, specifically identified under the name of 'basic list' in

Article 158

concerning access to waters and resources in the Treaty of Accession. The ships referred to in the list represent approximately 10 % of the total capacity recorded by the MAGP.

2.23. If all these factors are taken into account, it should be noted that, particularly in the case of Italy, France and the United Kingdom, the consequence of the full census of fishing capacity produced by the compilation of the Community register was a substantial upward revision of fishing capacity in tonnes and engine power taken into consideration under the MAGP.

2.24. In the case of Spain the impact was largely cancelled out by the exclusion of capacity included in the basis list mentioned in paragraph 2.2. It should be noted that, useful though the operations of laying-up and full census of existing capacity may have been, the effect of them, particularly in the case of Italy, France and the United Kingdom, was to take cognizance of fishing capacity which was relatively marginal in terms of activity compared with that which had previously been taken into account, bearing in mind the way in which the surveys were carried out. In effect, in these Member States the fishing capacity recorded previously did not take into account vessels which worked on a reduced scale at a level significantly lower than the average for the rest of the fleet.

2.25. Finally, it should be noted that the Commission's files did not provide evidence with which to establish accurately whether the capacity adjustments sanctioned on the occasion of the decisions on the MAGPs had in fact been strictly justified and documented. In particular, the monitoring of the trend was not made any easier by the omission of the number of fishing vessels from the decisions on the Member States' MAGPs, on the one hand, and on the other because the Community register of fishing vessels did not become operational until 1991, the last year covered by the MAGPs.

The figures

2.26. At the end of the period covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2908/83, the objectives of the 1989-1986 MAGPs seem, all in all, to have been achieved, if one refers to the reference situations at 1 January 1987 which were taken into consideration by the initial Commission decisions approving the MAGPs for the 1987 to 1991 period (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2).

2.27. In fact, the revisions of the Commission's authorizing decisions for the MAGPs that were carried out between 1988 and 1991 had the effect of highlighting additional capacity on 1 January 1987, compared with what was recorded on that date in the initial decisions, of 1 243 372 KW (i.e. 16,2 %) and 203 105 GRT (i.e. 10,4 %) as can be seen from a comparison of columns (c) and (d) of Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Allowing for the exclusion of the objective of reducing the capacity of the basic list and the fishing vessels used for transport, aquaculture and for fishing for molluscs and bivalves, the global objective at the end of 1991 was revised up to 520 000 KW (i.e. + 7,2 %) and 42 000 GRT (+ 2,2 %), which corresponds to a global capacity for the Community fleet of 1 906 537 GRT and 7 764 512 KW.

2.28. The corrections made following the amendments to the decisions approving the Member States' MAGPs represent, in terms of tonnage, almost the equivalent of the Irish fishing fleet, and in engine power the total of the German fleet (before reunification) and the Dutch fleet combined. As a proportion of new ships built, they correspond, in KW, to more than 220 % and in GRT to more than 60 % of the shipbuilding capacity receiving assistance from 1987 to 1990. In other words, maintaining the capacity level that results from totalling the capacities shown in the initial decisions would presuppose an additional withdrawal rate of 2,2 kW GRT for each new KW and 0,6 GRT for each new GRT built. This observation shows the effect, in terms of capacity, of the improved information on the Community fishing fleets. It also shows, a posteriori, that the figures for capacity objectives given for the MAGPs in Regulation (EEC) No 2908/83 have not been achieved, since the final figures were even significiantly above the figures originally envisaged (3,4 % in terms of tonnage and 7,8 % in terms of engine power), as a comparison of columns (c) and (d) of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 shows, ignoring excluded capacity.

2.29. On 31 December 1991, i.e. at the end of the period covered by the MAGPs, the global objectives in terms of tonnage had been achieved to the extent that global tonnage was less than 2 % of the objective allocated, whilst in terms of engine power the global capacity was one point higher than the objective.

2.30. In fact, though, these results must be qualified, by taking the following factors into consideration:

(a)in figures, taking into account the exclusion of certain capacities (Spanish basic list and capacity used for bivalve fishing), the capacity level recorded at the end of 1991, expressed in KW, was approximately equal to the objective set for the end of 1986, as shown by a comparison of columns (b) and (g) of Table 2.2;

(b)in real terms, the uncertainties pertaining to the units of measurement of capacity referred to in 2.4 to 2.9 above are such that the figures have only a limited degree of reliability for as long as they are not underpinned by units of measurement which remain consistent and homogenous from one Member State to another.

2.31. Finally, the global results must not mask the fact that they represent the aggregate of situations which vary considerably from one Member State to another. Thus, it is clear from columns (h) and (i) of Tables 2.1 and 2.2 that several Member States definitely achieved the capacity reduction objective, whilst Belgium, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Great Britain have achieved results that differ from the objectives set by more or less significant amounts.

The continuance of a degree of heterogeneity

2.32. Although the MAGPs, as defined by the above-mentioned Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, were supposed to cover the entire fishing fleet in respect of its total capacity as expressed in tonnage and engine power, the MAGPs of some Member States at present only concern part of the total capacity. Thus the MAGP for Spain excludes the basic list capacity (see 2.22), whilst the MAGP for Italy only covers licensed fishing vessels and the MAGP for the Netherlands only covers fishing capacity for species subject to quotas.

2.33. Whilst the fleets of the Member States have been allocated a global reduction objective in terms of tonnage and engine power, an examination of the content of the decisions adopted by the Commission for each Member State reveals a variety of approaches with variable degrees of precision. With the exception of the United Kingdom, for which only a global objective is mentioned, the other decisions quote, to varying degrees, capacities per section of the fleet that have been established either on the basis of the length of the fishing vessels or according to the waters fished in or the type of fishing, specifying the capacity at the beginning and end of the period. This breakdown, in objective terms, imposes no constraints at all and the decisions explicitly envisage a measure of flexibility which has not been quantified. As a result, the structure of a fishing fleet could at a pinch be modified in a particular direction which might not necessarily be compatible with the overall policy, and there would be no other limits on such a modification other than observing the global capacity reduction objective.

Inadequacy of the existing management instruments

The limits of the present MAGPs

2.34. In order to be able to function as an effective tool for defining and implementing a structural policy in the fishing sector, the inadequacies in the current MAGPs could be remedied by a more differentiated and more finely nuanced approach. Such an approach should contain an element of weighting applied to the idea of fishing capacity, relating available fish resources to existing fishing capacities, along with a breakdown by different fishing zones.

Weighting the notion of fishing capacity

2.35. Whereas fishing capacity is exclusively measured at present in terms of the vessel's tonnage and engine power, it is obvious that technological advances in ways of detecting and locating fish stocks represent a gain in efficiency at the practical task of fishing which some professionals estimate, according to the fisheries concerned, at several tens of percent. Since the new regulation which took effect on 1 January 1991 significantly widens the scope of application of building and modernization aid to include small vessels between 5 and 12 metres long, i.e. mainly inshore fishing vessels, taking such equipment into consideration would make it possible to obtain a better picture of the potential of this fleet and define its requirements more precisely.

2.36. By the same token, the degree of perfection of the engines with which, in a given category, fishing vessels are equipped also results in greater efficiency, fishing capacity expressed in tonnage and engine power remaining equal.

2.37. Even if the Structural Policy, in particular via the aid granted in respect of modernization over the years, has had the effect of harmonizing the level of equipment and accelerating the diffusion of technological advances, more precise knowledge of the level of equipment of fishing vessels seems to be likely to allow some weighting of the existing fishing capacity and, on the basis of this, more precise choices can be made, taking into consideration the assessment of the situation in respect of over-capacity in a given section of the fleet.

The relation between fish stocks and the existing level of fishing capacity

2.38. Establishing a link between available fish stocks and the capacity of the fleet fishing them presupposes accurate knowledge of the level of the stocks and the possibilities for exploiting them, as well as the vessels used for this type of fishing. If the catch statistics and the annual scientific assessments of certain permanent stocks make a comparison conceivable, the existence of fishing vessels which are able to carry out different sorts of fishing does not facilitate such an approach, even though it is undeniable that in the case of a permanent imbalance between the level of a stock of one species and the fishing capacity specifically related to that species, it is possible to draw useful lessons for the implementation of a structural policy.

2.39. In this sense, any differentiation by type of fishing of the existing capacity constitutes a step forward in the implementation of the structural policy in the fisheries sector, though it also presupposes more accurate data on catches made by zone and type of fishing. Such an approach can be used, even in a context of global overcapacity, to identify possibilities for developing certain sections of the fleet and for practising, where appropriate, a more selective policy in respect of aid.

Breakdown by main fishing zones

2.40. In addition to establishing a relationship between existing resources and fishing capacity, the implementation of which in itself presupposes a link with specific fishing zones, a breakdown of fishing capacity, at the level of each individual MAGP, according to the waters in which the activity is carried out also seems desirable. In fact, the structural aid granted at present is based to a large extent on objective criteria (the physical characteristics of the vessels), irrespective of all consideration of the legal system applicable to the waters in which the fishing activity is carried out.

Compatibility of MAGP objectives with the general guidelines for regional development

2.41. The policy of conserving and managing fish resources is implemented with the aim of protecting the specific needs of regions whose local populations are particularly dependent on fishing or related industries. However, the objective of adapting or reducing capacities using the instrument of monitoring and managing the structural policy, which is what the MAGPs amount to, does not appear to take this basic objective into account, insofar as the reductions in capacity apply uniformly to the various Community fishing fleets, including those from regions which have been given special status (e.g. Ireland).

The relationship between the Community register and the MGAP

2.42. Although Regulation (EEC) No 163/89 stipulates that the Member States shall send the Commission, once a month and at the latest three months after the event has been confirmed, information on any change or correction made to the national fishing register, it is clear, in the light of the Commission's files, that the Member States are not fully meeting their obligations in this respect. Whilst well aware of the time needed to set up the system, and of the difficulties connected with harmonization and the ways of using the various national systems, the majority of the Member States, at the beginning of the financial year 1992, had not forwarded a magnetic data-carrier with which to update the situation of the Community fishing fleet register as at 30 June 1991. In the Court's opinion, it is essential, in the interest of monitoring and management, that this delay should be significantly reduced, so that the register may play its full role as an operational instrument in the service of the structural policy.

2.43. Although decisions to grant Community aid to projects for building fishing vessels are taken on the basis of prior confirmation that the capacity growth objectives set by the MAGPs are being observed (see 3.5), the Commission should be able to ensure, using the Community register of fishing vessels, that the intermediary objectives have been achieved, or are in the process of being achieved, before it takes the decision to grant aid.

2.44. In fact, in contrast to the current procedure, where decisions relating to the building of vessels are mainly taken under the second tranche of the financial year and in the light of the situation of the MAGPs declared by the Member States, these decisions should be taken under the first tranche, after confirmation, corroborated by an examination of the file, that the intermediary objectives selected for the previous 31 December had been achieved. In any case, a clear link between the discharge of the Commission's obligations to provide information arising from Regulation (EEC) No 163/89 and the granting of aid with a positive effect on capacity growth should be envisaged, particularly in the event that this aid should be included within the framework of the Structural Funds, which would result in further decentralization of the Member States' powers in respect of the administration of Community aid.

Other management weaknesses

2.45. In accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, any vessel receiving construction or modernization aid must be used to supply the Community market for ten years (five years in the case of modernization aid) and, reciprocally, the granting of a final cessation premium during this period or failure to respect the commitment entered into for any other reason results in the Community aid received being repaid. However, there is no Commission instrument for monitoring commitments entered into and the Commission is at present not in a position, on the basis merely of the name of the vessel, to locate in the 'structures' file which traces the aid granted, the project in support of which the aid has been granted. Improved safeguarding of the Community's interests, which is especially important if one bears in mind the fact that in many cases the Community aid is greater than the aid paid by the Member State, could be ensured by interconnecting the Commission's data-files.

2.46. In the same way, internal checks should be capable of revealing which vessels and recipients have already received assistance previously, be it in respect of modernization or construction, in order to ensure, for example, that the same vessel may not first receive modernization aid and then, some months later, crop up again, without the prior cancellation of the first lot of aid, as having been withdrawn, in order to justify a new building project.

2.47. Similarly, concern for sound financial management of Community funds should lead to provision for the repayment of part of any aid previously granted in respect of construction or modernization aid when a new modernization measure resulting in the withdrawal of part of the equipment in respect of which the aid was granted, takes place before the five or ten year deadline is up.

2.48. Moreover, the entry in the register of a ship from another State ought not to be possible until the past history of the ship in question has been traced, so as to provide an assurance that it has not, in any case, been deprived of the right to fish in Community waters, either because of the fact that it has been granted final cessation aid or because it has been offered for withdrawal in support of a ship-building project. In this respect, the Court's audit revealed, particularly in the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom, that fishing boats from other Member States had been registered without the body responsible for the register being aware of or able to disclose the name and the registration number of the ship in its country of origin. This being so, and especially if the country of origin is implementing a capacity reduction scheme, it is not possible to be sure that the condition laid down for the granting of final cessation aid, namely definitive exclusion from fishing in Community waters, is in fact being abided by. Similarly, the arrangements for monitoring fishing boats should be improved so as to ensure that boats that fly the flag of a Member State which have been temporarily chartered by operators from another Member State, are not, ultimately, taken into consideration for any MAGP relating to the Member States concerned in cases where the ships in question have been fishing in Community waters.

2.49. Finally, steps should be taken to ensure that the beneficiaries of public aid are not in a position to make profits in the event of a forced sale, for whatever reasons, of ships that have received Community subsidies, as was the case in particular with project ES 99/87/1, in respect of which the owner made a profit, compared with his own investment, of 145 %.

2.50. In fact the information and monitoring systems for financial aid relating to fishing boats should be such as to allow the Commission to put into effect a system of integrated management that is closely related to the MAGPs. The Commission should be in a position to ensure that in all cases the conditions governing the awarding of aid are actually observed. The creation of such an integrated system is the precondition for retaining control at the Community level of the structural policy, as also during the changeover, envisaged by the Commission, from the present Structural Fund financial instruments. 3. AID FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION OF FISHING BOATS

Linking the aid to the MAGPs

The primacy of the Community decision

3.1. The legal frameworks established by Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 provides that measures for the construction and modernization of fishing boats must be included within the framework of the Multiannual Guidance Programmes (Articles 6(2)a) and 9(2)b) of the above regulation). Although no regulatory provision actually specifies which authority (Member State or Commission) is responsible for ensuring that the projects are included within the framework of the MAGPs, Article 5(1) of the abovementioned regulation entrusts the Commission with responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the MAGPs on the basis of information sent by the Member States; the Commission can therefore only grant Community aid to a project after it has checked that the project conforms with the objectives of the MAGP.

3.2. Moreover, concerning more specifically the question of calculating the amount of the aid, both for shipbuilding projects (Article 7(1) and for modernization projects (Article 10(1), the Regulation stipulates that 'for each project and in relation to the amount of investment eligible for aid, the aid provided for... and the financial contribution by the Member State concerned must be granted at the rates shown in Annex II'.

3.3. In view of the above, the Member State's financial aid may only be granted in relation to the amount of the investment taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of granting aid, i.e. the Member State's financial intervention is subject, in accordance with the legislation, to recognition that the project conforms with the objectives of the MAGP and, as far as the amount of national assistance paid is concerned, observance of the amount deducted from the rates established in Annex II of the regulation as a ratio of the amount of the investment taken into consideration by the Commission for the purposes of granting financial assistance.

Observance of the primacy of the Community contribution by the national aid scheme

3.4. It has emerged from an examination of projects carried out during the 1987 - 1990 period that the national aid schemes for the construction and modernization of fishing boats which exist in Germany, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom (for projects submitted to the competent authority up to April 1990, in the latter case) result in national aid being granted before the Commission has made its decision on the projects concerned. As a result, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom, it has been possible for construction projects to receive national State aid even though the capacity reduction objectives fixed by the MAGP had not been achieved, thus making these objectives even more difficult to achieve.

Inadequacies in the Commission's decision-taking process

3.5. When applications relating to projects likely to affect fleet capacity are submitted to the Commission, the latter systematically evaluates them in the light of the data available to it in respect of the capacity objectives fixed in the MAGPs of the Member State concerned. In fact, the practice followed up to 1989 (except for the freezing of construction projects agreed for 1989) led to projects being rejected for a variety of reasons, but mainly on the grounds that the budgetary resources were inadequate. Thus it was that, in respect of the second tranche of 1989 decisions, almost all shipbuilding projects, save for three, submitted by the United Kingdom were rejected because of a lack of available budgetary resources. Similarly, modernization projects submitted by Ireland entailing an increase in engine power were rejected on the same grounds, although these projects were not compatible with the objectives of the structural policy (see paragraph 5.12 of the annual report of the Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1990)(20) ()

. In view of the alleged reason for rejection, the national authorities considered that they were justified in granting public assistance to these projects, whereas a rejection confirming that these projects (of which there were about thirty) failed to comply with the objectives of the structural policy would have excluded them from any form of public aid.

3.6. A decision-taking process capable of preventing purely national financing which does not conform to the objectives of the structural policy and integrating the objective of capacity control followed by the current regulation would require the Commission to intervene, for any investment project affecting capacity, on two levels:

a)to declare that the project comes within the framework of the MAGP and establish the amount of the investment to be taken into consideration for financial assistance: this constitutes intervention at the level of the definition and pursual of the structural policy;

b)to grant assistance within the limits of its financial resources: this constitutes intervention at the level of and within the limits of the budgetary resources available.

Once the Commission has expressed a favourable opinion on a project in respect of the MAGP, public aid (national and Community or solely national) becomes possible and its compatibility with the objectives of the structural policy is recognized at Community level.

3.7. As far as aid for modernization is concerned, the Commission, having excluded projects involving an increase in capacity (tonnage and engine power) from all assistance adopted, in its latest internal guidelines, a more flexible position authorizing increases in capacity in cases where withdrawals of capacity were associated with the project, or where the MAGP objectives had been reached. This approach ensures that modernization aid will remain without effect on the final objectives of the MAGPs. In fact, pressure on fishing stocks is not a result solely of capacity as defined by the MAGPs, but also of the effort devoted to fishing, i.e. all the factors which together increase fishing efficiency. In this sense, modernization projects help to increase the fishing effort, even where there is no quantitative increase in fishing capacity, and a concern for consistency in the implementation of the structural policy ought to lead the Commission to establish a link between the MAGP and the granting of modernization aid that is similar to that existing since 1990 for construction projects, i.e. not to grant financial assistance to projects that increase the fishing effort if the objectives of the MAGP of the Member State concerned have not been achieved.

Appraising projects for aid for shipbuilding

Appraising aid applications

3.8. Requests for Community financial assistance relating to construction projects are sent to the Commission via the Member State concerned on the basis of the MAGP priorities. Twice a year, by 30 June and 31 December at the latest, the Commission decides whether to reject or accept the applications for assistance which have been submitted to it. In practice, the link established with the monitoring of the MAGPs has several times led the Commission to defer decisions relating to construction aid. Thus, in 1988, decisions concerning the building of new boats were only taken for Portugal and the French overseas departments, whilst, in respect of subsequent financial years, they have mainly been taken in respect of the second tranche of the financial year, the deferment most frequently being justified by the lack of information available concerning the state of progress of the MAGPs.

3.9. In some cases, this leads to the Community decision being taken very late in relation to the date the project was started; and even, in some cases, after the project has been completed. In fact, an application for aid is admissible if it reaches the Commission before the boat concerned is put into service. As aid is not granted automatically to every applicant, this admissibility condition is not adequate to ensure an effective link between the Community decision to grant financial assistance and the realization of the investment. Where a decision is made late, the impact of the structural policy consists solely of aid being granted a posteriori for an investment which has already been made whereas, in view of the particular context of the structural policy, the Commission should pursue the objective of influencing, via the financial assistance granted, both the date and the decision to invest.

3.10. In order to re-establish a genuine link between the decision to invest and the Community financial assistance, and subject to the comment made in paragraph 2.43, aid should only be granted to projects relating to vessels which have not entered service before the deadline for the submission of requests for assistance relating to the tranche in respect of which the decision to grant assistance is made.

3.11. Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, in respect of which construction aid is granted, entered into force on 1 January 1987, a large number of internal rules relating to admissibility and conformity with MAGP objectives and to the calculation of the amount of the investment to be taken into consideration for granting Community financial assistance were made late, and were not formally communicated to the Member States until the spring of 1991.

3.12. This state of affairs is one of the reasons why there is a lack of uniformity in the appraisal of the files for applications for assistance relating to construction projects. This is illustrated by the following findings:

(a)projects presented to the Commission on the basis of strictly identical estimates were the subject of decisions to grant assistance where the amount eligible for Community assistance was different (e.g. Es 166 and 173/87/1; It 99 and 100/89/2;

(b)for some projects (projects F/1987) no increase for hazards and contingencies was taken into consideration, even though this was requested and, as a rule, such an increase is always granted;

(c)conversely, an increase for contingencies and price amendments was granted for project P 54/87/1 (Community aid granted: 342 000 ECU), whereas it is not clear from the Commission file that the beneficiary made any such request. An over-commitment resulted at the level of the Community budget, which then led to a disbursement of appropriations corresponding to 14 % of the amount committed;

(d)one project (ES 190/87/1: Community aid granted: 328 000 ECU) was given Community aid, although the beneficiary had not enclosed an estimate supporting his request for assistance;

(e)in some cases, (e.g: It 47/87/1, UK 253/89/2), information on the tonnage and engine power of the boat it was proposed to build included with the request for assistance was imprecise or self-contradictory which meant that, when the project was completed, it was impossible to ensure that the criteria at the basis of this decision had been complied with (see paragraphs 3.26 and 3.51-3.52 below).

3.13. More generally, it should be pointed out that, when the amount to be taken into consideration for the granting of financial assistance is determined for each project, the amounts which are not considered eligible for Community aid are not always clearly justified. Such justification should be drawn up clearly, by budget heading and sub-heading, and should be attached to the document submitted to the Financial Controller for approval, so that, when the final payment is made, the amounts considered not to be eligible can be effectively excluded from the package of Community financial assistance.

Linking shipbuilding aid to the shipbuilding premium

3.14. Although the 'guidelines for the examination of national aid in the fisheries sector'(21) ()

adopted in response to the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2908/83 did not explicitly mention aid granted in the form of premiums for shipbuilding and merely pointed out that national aid was compatible with the common market if the rate of such aid did not exceed, in terms of subsidy equivalents, the global rate of subsidies permitted by the Community legislation in the fisheries sector, the new guidelines(22) ()

adopted in this field explicitly exclude the granting of national aid under the sixth directive on shipbuilding to for fishing boats intended for the Community fleet.

3.15. In view of the date on which these guidelines were published (8 December 1988), construction projects in receipt of aid in 1987 under Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 were still eligible to benefit from shipbuilding premiums and the aid application files refer to the existence of a shipbuilding premium, in particular in the case of Spanish construction projects.

3.16. An examination of the appraisal files for the projects concerned revealed that in numerous cases the amount of the shipbuilding premium which it was planned to grant had not been taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether or not the projects conformed to the objectives of the structural policy, and that, in particular, many projects had received financial assistance even though it was clear from the aid application files that the Member State's financial contribution exceeded, in percentage terms, the maximum amount fixed by Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 as a ratio of the amount taken into consideration for the purposes of granting Community financial assistance (see Spanish projects Nos 95, 97, 100, 103, 116, 173, 177 and 179/87). Such anomalies were still to be found under the second tranche for 1989 (projects 142 and 451). Whether one considers that only expenditure actually borne by the beneficiary is eligible for Community aid or whether one takes the view that the total expenditure on the project is eligible, the result in any case is that the total amount of public aid referred to in the appraisal file, compared with the amount of the investment considered to be eligible, exceeds the thresholds laid down by the regulations. As a proportion of the estimated expenditure to be borne by the beneficiary, the amount of Community aid exceeds, sometimes by 20 %, the amount which should have been granted if only the estimated expenditure actually borne by the beneficiary had been taken into account.

The importance of the criterion of associated withdrawal

3.17. According to Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86 (Article 8(2)), associating the withdrawal of an active fishing vessel with the completion of a shipbuilding project is only a priority criterion. Nonetheless, the structural overcapacity situation which typifies the Community fleet has led the Commission to demand more and more insistently, that any new project should be accompanied by a withdrawal. Thus, the quantity of capacity withdrawn in relation to the planned new capacity, subject to general conformity with the MAGPs, has gradually become one of the principal criteria for the selection of projects.

3.18. Even if, globally, from 1987 to 1990 all ship-building projects represent in terms of capacity a total tonnage that is barely lower than the tonnage withdrawn and an installed engine power that is 10 % higher, an examination of Tables 3.3 and 3.4 shows that only the projects under the 1987 tranche were authorized with a withdrawal rate of about 60 %, although, since that date, the withdrawal rate has almost always been higher than 1.

3.19. In fact, the withdrawal rate varies significantly according to the Member State concerned: Spain and Portugal have a withdrawal rate greater than one, whilst shipbuilding projects financed in Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom have only been accompanied by capacity withdrawals of less than 50 % in comparison with the planned new capacity. In this respect, though the reasons for these differences are to a very great extent the result of the particular circumstances of individual projects, they can also be explained by the following differences of approach:

(a)in some national regulations, which have been refined over the years in line with the capacity reduction objective, a new ship can only benefit from public aid provided an equivalent reduction in capacity is proposed (either in terms of tonnage or in terms of engine power, according to the specific difficulties experienced by the Member State concerned in achieving the capacity reduction objectives). In a context which envisages a withdrawal rate greater than one, the building of new ships becomes an essential means of achieving the MAGP objectives;

(b)the Member States which implement programmes for reducing capacity by means of the payment of final cessation premiums may arrive in terms of capacity sufficiently beyond the objectives fixed by their MAGP in order to be able to allow the construction of new vessels to go ahead without associated withdrawals.

3.20. Moreover, demanding a concomitant withdrawal of capacity with any new shipbuilding project inevitably causes problems which in fact limit the effectiveness of the measure undertaken.

3.21. In the first place, the amount of actual fishing activity likely to result from any given quantity of fishing capacity is not only a function of the intrinsic capacity of the boat but also, and increasingly, of the extent to which the ship in question has been authorized to fish. Thus, granting financial assistance should not only be linked to the capacity withdrawn but also to an assessment and confirmation of the fishing rights and licences which will be granted to the new vessel. In this respect, the Commission's priority criterion must be weighted by taking into consideration the order of priority expressed by the Member States in support of their aid applications in the light of the new ship's actual fishing possibilities.

3.22. Secondly, demanding an associated withdrawal should also have been strictly related to the possession and, above all, the actual use, by the beneficiary of the new project, of the vessel offered for withdrawal. Normally, the Commission requires that the boat which is offerd for withdrawal should have been in the possession of the beneficiary for at least one year, but, in fact, the checks of the files carried out show that this requirement has frequently not been upheld. This has led in some places to the emergence of a real market on which tonnage and engine power operate are traded so that the beneficiaries can meet the requirement of an associated or additional withdrawal. Extreme examples in this respect are provided by transactions or associated withdrawals concerning fishing vessels which have sunk, sometimes even before Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 came into force (e.g. P 11/88/2, Gr 19/89/1 and 157/89/2).

3.23. In addition, any vessel that is withdrawn should be accompanied by properly documented evidence to show that it actually was used for fishing. In fact, the checks carried out showed that a significant number of projects had been carried out in the absence in the Commission files of any supporting evidence in respect of catch quantities relating to the boats which had been withdrawn. In these cases, the new fishing boat in fact helps to increase even further the fleet's overcapacity (e.g. Es 88/87/1; P 10, 11 and 12/88/2; 11, 18 and 19/87/1; UK 151/87/1 and Italy 262/89/2).

3.24. Thirdly, the provisions relating to withdrawn vessels stipulate that the withdrawal must be carried out either by sending the boat to the ship-breakers' yard, or by using it for an activity other than fishing, or, lastly, by exporting it to an area outside Community waters. In fact, the indications given on the aid application forms relating to the redeployment of the withdrawn vessel when a new vessel is put into service are not binding, i.e. such a vessel may very well be exported even though it was originally intended to send it to the breaker (e.g. Es 166, 173, 177/87/1, 438/89/1; P 21/87/1). In this case, taking account of the possibility of more or less genuine reallocations of boats through the use of flags of convenience in fact increases competition outside Community waters with vessels flying the Community flag.

3.25. Finally, all new capacity is put into service following the building of a new ship, in terms of tonnage and power equivalent to the capacity withdrawn, a measure of effectiveness that is greatly superior to the units which it replaces. In the absence of precise figures, the replacement of one ship by another which is identical in terms of tonnage and power results undeniably in added pressure on stocks. If this factor is taken into account, a withdrawal rate significantly higher than one is needed if construction aid is to remain compatible with the objective of maintaining the same pressure on stocks.

The contents of the Commission decisions

3.26. In relation to the capacity criteria (tonnage and engine power), which constitute the reference units for the operational objectives of the structural policy in the fisheries sector, the Commission decisions granting financial assistance are surprisingly imprecise. On a formal level, first of all, they are remarkably ambiguous regarding the power rating of withdrawn boats and do not specify exactly whether it is measured in kilowatts or horsepower. As for the physical characteristics of the project envisaged, the decision refers only to the length between perpendiculars, which affects the amount of the Community contribution. It does not, on the other hand, contain any information on the power or tonnage of the proposed new vessel. Given that these are conditions that are of vital importance bearing in mind the quantitative indicators given in the structural policy, such information should be shown, if only for the sake of transparency and clarity, in the decision sent to the beneficiary and the Member State. In many cases the Court's findings made during its checks on the implementation of projects and payments (see paragraphs 3.49 and 3.54 hereafter) originate in the failure to respect, when the projects are carried out, the physical characteristics mentioned in support of aid applications.

Budgetary implementation

3.27. From 1987 to 1990, the Commission granted 177,3 Mio ECU of aid for the construction of 672 fishing boats, representing 69 800 GRT and an engine power of 238 000 KW, i.e. a renewal of approximately 3 % of the total capacity of the Community fleet. Table 3.1 shows the situation, by Member State, of the shipbuilding projects in receipt of aid, which reflects the relative importance of the various fishing fleets. Only two Member States, Denmark and the Netherlands, do not have any scheme of public assistance for the construction of fishing boats.

3.28. At the beginning of the financial year 1992, the state of implementation of all these projects (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2), as observed through the Commission's accounts can be described as follows:

(a)out of the 672 projects selected, 307 have been completed, 38 have been abandoned and 327 are still to be completed;

(b)out of 177,3 Mio ECU committed, 92,5 Mio ECU has been paid over, 1,7 Mio ECU has been decommitted in respect of outstanding projects and 7,4 Mio ECU in respect of abandoned projects;

(c)the overall implementation rate for projects in receipt of assistance from the 1987 to 1990 tranches measured in terms of payments made, was 54 % of appropriations committed.

3.29. This overall situation in fact reflects very variable rates of implementation and execution in the different Member States (Ireland: 29 %; Italy: 35 %; Portugal: 41 %; France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Belgium: more than 65 %) which, in fact, is slightly higher on account of the time span, which varies from one Member State to another, between the moment the fishing boat is put into service and the moment the balance is paid out.

Table 1.1 - World production of fishery products "(tonnes)">(1)"> ID="1">65 683 888> ID="2">72 112 032> ID="3">92 739 840> ID="4">94 248 528> ID="5">98 662 240> ID="6">99 534 584"> ID="1">(23 821 456)> ID="2">(20 936 976)> ID="3">(29 626 640)> ID="4">(28 309 728)> ID="5">(31 111 344)> ID="6">(30 320 000)"> ID="1">6 643 877> ID="2">6 703 961> ID="3">7 033 504> ID="4">6 921 528> ID="5">7 188 630> ID="6">6 956 688"> ID="1">(1 142 249)> ID="2">(2 237 420)> ID="3">(1 867 894)> ID="4">(1 967 956)> ID="5">(2 272 274)> ID="6">(2 126 448)"> ID="1">7 332 640> ID="2">9 515 640> ID="3">11 259 955> ID="4">11 159 617> ID="5">11 332 101> ID="6">11 310 091"> ID="1">(1 369 798)> ID="2">(2 341 1165)> ID="3">(2 929 396)> ID="4">(2 810 429)> ID="5">(2 810 607)> ID="6">(2 718 766)"> ID="1">3 358 400> ID="2">4 235 348> ID="3">8 000 063> ID="4">9 346 222> ID="5">10 358 678> ID="6">11 219 994"> ID="1">(10 500)> ID="2">(0)> ID="3">(272 500)> ID="4">(255 999)> ID="5">(293 500)> ID="6">(312 500)"> ID="1">9 359 600> ID="2">10 433 997> ID="3">11 976 274> ID="4">11 848 582> ID="5">11 967 051> ID="6">11 174 464"> ID="1">(2 061 992)> ID="2">(3 137 039)> ID="3">(5 070 592)> ID="4">(5 063 573)> ID="5">(5 438 728)> ID="6">(4 482 781)"> ID="1">2 879 900> ID="2">3 793 612> ID="3">5 166 619> ID="4">5 986 120> ID="5">5 936 618> ID="6">5 744 318"> ID="1">(1 110 997)> ID="2">(1 107 646)> ID="3">(1 210 764)> ID="4">(1 360 629)> ID="5">(1 208 471)> ID="6">(1 259 474)"> ID="1">10 506 100> ID="2">2 708 612> ID="3">5 613 977> ID="4">4 583 600> ID="5">6 637 106> ID="6">6 831 465"> ID="1">(10 298 799)> ID="2">(1 726 210)> ID="3">(5 077 719)> ID="4">(4 004 388)> ID="5">(6 099 999)> ID="6">(6 199 682)"> ID="1">1 487 000> ID="2">2 816 768> ID="3">5 571 638> ID="4">4 814 641> ID="5">5 209 883> ID="6">6 454 142"> ID="1">(1 308 100)> ID="2">(2 445 086)> ID="3">(5 082 888)> ID="4">(4 278 188)> ID="5">(4 605 702)> ID="6">(5 760 602)""N.B.: The figures in parentheses are for non-food uses.

Source: FAO, Fish and Fishery Products, Rome, July 1991.>

Table 1.2 - Extra-Community imports and exports of fishery products for human consumption """ ID="1">1 352> ID="2">3 188> ID="3">1 410> ID="4">3 576> ID="5">1 663> ID="6">4 145> ID="7">1 896> ID="8">4 782> ID="9">2 141> ID="10">5 384> ID="11">2 287> ID="12">5 814> ID="13">2 599> ID="14">6 433"> ID="1">649> ID="2">907> ID="3">713> ID="4">1 086> ID="5">854> ID="6">1 228> ID="7">791> ID="8">1 211> ID="9">789> ID="10">1 169> ID="11">888> ID="12">1 249> ID="13">890> ID="14">1 204"> ID="1"> 703> ID="2"> 2 281> ID="3"> 697> ID="4"> 2 490> ID="5"> 809> ID="6"> 2 917> ID="7"> 1 105> ID="8"> 3 571> ID="9"> 1 352> ID="10"> 4 215> ID="11"> 1 399> ID="12"> 4 565> ID="13"> 1 709> ID="14"> 5 229""N.B.: Vol. = Volume in '000 tonnes.

Val. = Value in Mio ECU.

Imports/Exports/Balance = 03 + 1 605 (= fish for human consumption, excluding paste).

Imports/Export: source = COMEXT 18.10.1991.

1984-1990: All figures are for Europe of 12.

Source: 1991 Commission report (Annex 6).>

Table 2.1 - Changes in capacity and tonnage objectives of community fishing fleets (unit: grt) ">(2)(3)"> ID="1">22 000> ID="2">22 000> ID="3">22 846> ID="4">25 165> ID="5">21 340> ID="6">21 340> ID="7">27 089> ID="8">+5 749> ID="9">+26"> ID="1">123 091> ID="2">122 879> ID="3">136 488> ID="4">136 680> ID="5">119 400> ID="6">119 188> ID="7">110 332> ID="8"> 8 856> ID="9"> 7"> ID="2">[212](1)> ID="4">[212](1)"> ID="1">78 479> ID="2">78 479> ID="3">49 900> ID="4">51 500> ID="5">48 200> ID="6">49 200> ID="7">-> ID="8">-> ID="9">-"> ID="4">[2 200](1)"> ID="1">-> ID="2">-> ID="3">-> ID="4">-> ID="5">-> ID="6">76 950> ID="7">69 991> ID="8"> 6 959> ID="9"> 9"> ID="1">134 659> ID="2">134 659> ID="3">137 761> ID="4">137 761> ID="5">130 619> ID="6">130 946> ID="7">131 970(4)> ID="8">+1 024> ID="9">+1"> ID="1">668 668(5)> ID="2">613 530> ID="3">663 158> ID="4">631 838> ID="5">648 607> ID="6">604 757> ID="7">567 568> ID="8"> 37 189> ID="9"> 6"> ID="2">[5 628](1)> ID="4">[8 337](1)"> ID="2">[65 874](6)> ID="4">[64 114](6)"> ID="1">192 807> ID="2">207 839(7)> ID="3">191 028> ID="4">209 560> ID="5">187 023> ID="6">201 604> ID="7">184 495> ID="8"> 17 109> ID="9"> 8"> ID="4">[15 271](1)"> ID="1">45 300> ID="2">45 300> ID="3">53 065> ID="4">58 845> ID="5">43 941> ID="6">43 941> ID="7">50 693> ID="8">+6 752> ID="9">+15"> ID="1">257 767> ID="2">275 255> ID="3">262 717> ID="4">302 986> ID="5">250 000> ID="6">268 198> ID="7">268 187> ID="8"> 11> ID="9">-"> ID="1">66 800> ID="2">66 800> ID="3">77 500> ID="4">82 400> ID="5">64 796> ID="6">64 796> ID="7">82 400> ID="8">+17 604> ID="9">+27"> ID="4">[13 500](1)"> ID="1">215 608(5)> ID="2">215 930> ID="3">210 525> ID="4">208 670> ID="5">209 140> ID="6">209 540> ID="7">182 829> ID="8"> 26 711> ID="9"> 12"> ID="4">[523](1)"> ID="1">146 000> ID="2">198 977> ID="3">148 403> ID="4">206 934> ID="5">141 620> ID="6">193 027> ID="7">217 273> ID="8">+24 246> ID="9">+12"> ID="1">1 951 179> ID="2">1 983 648> ID="3">1 953 391(8)> ID="4">2 052 339> ID="5">1 864 686> ID="6">1 906 537> ID="7">1 892 627> ID="8"> 41 660> ID="9"> 2"> ID="2">[5 840](1)> ID="4">[40 043](1)> ID="6">1 934 287(3)"> ID="2">[65 874](6)> ID="4">[64 114](6)"> ID="2">2 055 362> ID="4">2 156 496""Sources: Commission and Member States

>

Table 2.2 - Changes in capacity and power objectives of community fishing fleets (unit: kW) ">(2)(3)"> ID="1">70 656> ID="2">70 656> ID="3">71 250> ID="4">78 506> ID="5">69 242> ID="6">69 242> ID="7">79 816> ID="8">+10 574> ID="9">+15"> ID="1">525 825> ID="2">525 241> ID="3">571 996> ID="4">563 667> ID="5">515 300> ID="6">514 716> ID="7">487 897> ID="8"> 26 819> ID="9"> 5"> ID="2">[584](1)> ID="4">[584](1)"> ID="1">161 494> ID="2">161 494> ID="3">137 000> ID="4">139 100> ID="5">132 000> ID="6">138 000> ID="7">-> ID="8">-> ID="9">-"> ID="4">[4 000](1)"> ID="1">-> ID="2">-> ID="3">-> ID="4">-> ID="5">-> ID="6">182 500> ID="7">166 300> ID="8"> 16 200> ID="9"> 8"> ID="1">502 467> ID="2">502 467> ID="3">568 823> ID="4">568 823> ID="5">492 413> ID="6">493 776> ID="7">574 736(4)> ID="8">+80 960> ID="9">+16"> ID="1">2 131 412(5)> ID="2">1 776 610> ID="3">2 130 156> ID="4">1 831 554> ID="5">2 088 783> ID="6">1 756 001> ID="7">1 671 551> ID="8"> 84 450> ID="9"> 4"> ID="2">[27 220](1)> ID="4">[50 264](1)"> ID="2">[162 827](6)> ID="4">[160 597](6)"> ID="1">914 000> ID="2">1 076 582(7)> ID="3">918 087> ID="4">1 158 576> ID="5">895 720> ID="6">1 055 050> ID="7">1 053 931> ID="8"> 1 119> ID="9">-"> ID="4">[117 421](1)"> ID="1">181 200> ID="2">181 200> ID="3"> 212 260> ID="4">234 892> ID="5">177 576> ID="6">177 576> ID="7">191 604> ID="8">+14 028> ID="9">+7"> ID="1">1 223 099> ID="2">1 568 288> ID="3">1 295 804> ID="4">1 796 829> ID="5">1 198 600> ID="6">1 541 664> ID="7">1 519 695> ID="8"> 21 969> ID="9"> 1"> ID="1">390 080> ID="2">390 080> ID="3">462 900> ID="4">498 000> ID="5">382 278> ID="6">382 278> ID="7">419 397> ID="8">+37 119> ID="9">+9"> ID="4">[39 043](1)"> ID="1">555 621(3)> ID="2">552 044> ID="3">542 527> ID="4">515 988> ID="5">544 508> ID="6">541 003> ID="7">491 128> ID="8"> 49 875> ID="9"> 9"> ID="4">[1 072](1)"> ID="1">763 515> ID="2">1 117 557> ID="3">759 953> ID="4">1 155 212> ID="5">748 245> ID="6">1 095 206> ID="7">1 219 574> ID="8">+124 368> ID="9">+11"> ID="1">7 419 369> ID="2">7 922 219> ID="3">7 670 756(8)> ID="4">8 541 147> ID="5">7 244 665> ID="6">7 764 512(7)> ID="7">+1"> ID="2">[27 804](1)> ID="4">[212 384](1)> ID="6">7 809 012(3)"> ID="2">[162 827](6)> ID="4">[160 597](6)"> ID="2">8 112 850> ID="4">8 914 128""Source: Commission and Member States

>

Table 3.1. - General summary: Implementation level for projects funded in the period 1987-1990, by member state, end 1991 "(in ECU at the accounting rate for the commitment)">Member State"> ID="1">2> ID="2">639 690> ID="3">0,4> ID="4">2> ID="5">627 716> ID="6">98,1> ID="7">0,7> ID="8">11 974> ID="9">1,9> ID="10">0,7> ID="11">0> ID="12">0> ID="13">0,0> ID="14">0,0> ID="15">0> ID="16">0> ID="17">0,0> ID="18">0,0"> ID="1">31> ID="2">8 926 438> ID="3">5,0> ID="4">14> ID="5">6 155 371> ID="6">69,0> ID="7">6,5> ID="8">43 341> ID="9">0,5> ID="10">2,6> ID="11">3> ID="12">241 196> ID="13">2,7> ID="14">3,3> ID="15">14> ID="16">2 486 533> ID="17">27,9> ID="18">3,4"> ID="1">49> ID="2">6 517 416> ID="3">3,7> ID="4">32> ID="5">3 840 436> ID="6">58,9> ID="7">4,0> ID="8">162 048> ID="9">2,5> ID="10">9,7> ID="11">4> ID="12">751 813> ID="13">11,5> ID="14">10,2> ID="15">13> ID="16">1 763 120> ID="17">27,1> ID="18">2,4"> ID="1">192> ID="2">60 853 289> ID="3">34,3> ID="4">92> ID="5">35 842 670> ID="6">58,9> ID="7">37,6> ID="8">289 990> ID="9">0,5> ID="10">17,4> ID="11">8> ID="12">2 294 084> ID="13">3,8> ID="14">31,0> ID="15">92> ID="16">22 426 543> ID="17">36,9> ID="18">30,7"> ID="1">122> ID="2">32 617 333> ID="3">18,4> ID="4">68> ID="5">20 982 079> ID="6">64,3> ID="7">22,0> ID="8">285 565> ID="9">0,9> ID="10">17,2> ID="11">6> ID="12">923 931> ID="13">2,8> ID="14">12,5> ID="15">48> ID="16">10 425 758> ID="17">32,0> ID="18">14,3"> ID="1">15> ID="2">2 052 865> ID="3">1,2> ID="4">6> ID="5">572 209> ID="6">27,9> ID="7">0,6> ID="8">20 896> ID="9">1,0> ID="10">1,3> ID="11">0> ID="12">0> ID="13">0,0> ID="14">0,0> ID="15">9> ID="16">1 459 759> ID="17">71,1> ID="18">2,0"> ID="1">119> ID="2">27 257 170> ID="3">15,4> ID="4">31> ID="5">9 323 781> ID="6">34,2> ID="7">9,8> ID="8">174 220> ID="9">0,6> ID="10">10,5> ID="11">1> ID="12">22 613> ID="13">0,1> ID="14">0,3> ID="15">87> ID="16">17 736 556> ID="17">65,1> ID="18">24,3"> ID="1">116> ID="2">32 055 880> ID="3">18,1> ID="4">40> ID="5">12 604 438> ID="6">39,3> ID="7">13,2> ID="8">559 848> ID="9">1,7> ID="10">33,6> ID="11">13> ID="12">2 961 996> ID="13">9,2> ID="14">40,1> ID="15">63> ID="16">15 929 601> ID="17">49,7> ID="18">21,8"> ID="1">26> ID="2">6 369 593> ID="3">3,6> ID="4">22> ID="5">5 255 661> ID="6">82,5> ID="7">5,5> ID="8">116 289> ID="9">1,8> ID="10">7,0> ID="11">3> ID="12">196 360> ID="13">3,1> ID="14">2,7> ID="15">1> ID="16">801 284> ID="17">12,6> ID="18">1,1"> ID="1">672> ID="2">177 289 674> ID="3">100,0> ID="4">307> ID="5">95 204 361> ID="6">53,7> ID="7">100,0> ID="8">1 664 171> ID="9">0,9> ID="10">100,0> ID="11">38> ID="12">7 391 993> ID="13">4,2> ID="14">100,0> ID="15">327> ID="16">73 029 154> ID="17">41,2> ID="18">100,0""N = Number of ships built.

%T = Member State's share of Community total.

%N = Paid or unused as a percentage of the appropriations committed for each Member State.>

Table 3.2 - Implementation rate per tranche "(in ECU at the accounting rate for the commitment)">Tranche"> ID="1">61 018 290> ID="2">34,4> ID="3">47 753 592> ID="4">50,2> ID="5">1 043 226> ID="6">62,7> ID="7">2 349 611> ID="8">31,8> ID="9">9 871 863> ID="10">13,5"> ID="1">8 645 694> ID="2">4,9> ID="3">3 234 738> ID="4">3,4> ID="5">109 469> ID="6">6,6> ID="7">1 345 048> ID="8">18,2> ID="9">3 956 440> ID="10">5,4"> ID="1">28 185 821> ID="2">15,9> ID="3">17 767 688> ID="4">18,7> ID="5">162 513> ID="6">9,8> ID="7">1 368 587> ID="8">18,5> ID="9">8 887 034> ID="10">12,2"> ID="1">35 239 664> ID="2">19,9> ID="3">15 511 689> ID="4">16,3> ID="5">281 696> ID="6">16,9> ID="7">1 973 798> ID="8">26,7> ID="9">17 472 482> ID="10">23,9"> ID="1">44 200 205> ID="2">24,9> ID="3">10 936 654> ID="4">11,5> ID="5">67 267> ID="6">4,0> ID="7">354 949> ID="8">4,8> ID="9">32 841 335> ID="10">45,0"> ID="1">177 289 674> ID="2">100,0> ID="3">95 204 361> ID="4">100,0> ID="5">1 664 171> ID="6">100,0> ID="7">7 391 993> ID="8">100,0> ID="9">73 029 154> ID="10">100,0">

Table 3.3 - General summary: tonnage and power (by tranche (1) ) > "Tranche"> ID="1">269> ID="2">26 048> ID="3">37,9> ID="4">15 615> ID="5">21,7> ID="6">0,60> ID="7">99 961> ID="8">42,7> ID="9">55 998> ID="10">26,2> ID="11">0,56"> ID="1">14> ID="2">4 206> ID="3">6,1> ID="4">6 439> ID="5">9,0> ID="6">1,53> ID="7">7 908> ID="8">3,4> ID="9">10 177> ID="10">4,8> ID="11">1,29"> ID="1">122> ID="2">11 418> ID="3">16,6> ID="4">11 264> ID="5">15,7> ID="6">0,99> ID="7">40 800> ID="8">17,4> ID="9">38 916> ID="10">18,2> ID="11">0,95"> ID="1">105> ID="2">12 806> ID="3">18,6> ID="4">26 464> ID="5">36,8> ID="6">2,07> ID="7">41 863> ID="8">17,9> ID="9">65 966> ID="10">30,8> ID="11">1,58"> ID="1">138> ID="2">14 304> ID="3">20,8> ID="4">12 114> ID="5">16,8> ID="6">0,85> ID="7">43 427> ID="8">18,6> ID="9">42 927> ID="10">20,1> ID="11">0,99"> ID="1">648> ID="2">68 782> ID="3">100,0> ID="4">71 896> ID="5">100,0> ID="6">1,05> ID="7">233 959> ID="8">100,0> ID="9">213 984> ID="10">100,0> ID="11">0,91""Average tonnage of projects 1987-1990/2: 106

Average withdrawal for projects 1987-1990/2 grt: 111

Average power of projects 1987-1990/2: 361

Average withdrawal for projects 1987-1990/2 kW: 330

grt-b: tonnage built

grt-w: tonnage withdrawn

rwt: rate of withdrawal for the tranche

kW-b: power built

kW-w: power withdrawn>

Tabel 3.4 - General summary: tonnage and power (by Member State) ">Member State(1)"> ID="1">2> ID="2">379> ID="3">0,6> ID="4">247> ID="5">0,3> ID="6">0,65> ID="7">1 100> ID="8">0,5> ID="9">941> ID="10">0,4> ID="11">0,86"> ID="1">31> ID="2">7 195> ID="3">10,5> ID="4">2 407> ID="5">3,3> ID="6">0,33> ID="7">13 633> ID="8">5,8> ID="9">6 749> ID="10">3,2> ID="11">0,50"> ID="1">49> ID="2">2 507> ID="3">3,6> ID="4">1 683> ID="5">2,3> ID="6">0,67> ID="7">10 966> ID="8">4,7> ID="9">7 237> ID="10">3,4> ID="11">0,66"> ID="1">192> ID="2">21 727> ID="3">31,6> ID="4">24 885> ID="5">34,6> ID="6">1,15> ID="7