WRITTEN QUESTION P-2184/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Modification of the cohesion policy agreed on in Berlin in the context of Agenda 2000

Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) 1260/1999(1) laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds stipulates each plan, Community support framework, operational programme and single programming document shall cover a period of seven years. Four exceptions to this timescale are envisaged, the first two in paragraph 1 itself and the others in paragraph 2.

The recent Commission proposal to amend Regulation (EC) 2792/1999(2) aims to abolish certain forms of aid envisaged under the FIFG in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 1263/1999(3), which constitutes a unilateral modification of the Community Support Framework (CSF) adopted by the Commission, once the plan submitted by the Member State concerned has been analysed. The plan should describe, inter alia, the specific objectives (Article 9(d)) of Regulation 1260/99.

Can the Commission say whether it considers this unilateral modification of what was already agreed under the said CSF as a result of the legislation deriving from Agenda 2000 to be lawful?

If it does, on the basis of what tangible legal basis and what arguments can the Commission justify this unilateral modification of the rules agreed for a period of seven years, which seriously affects the programming and interests of economic operators in the Member States and the economic and social cohesion of the regions where they are established, mainly Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p. 10.

(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 54.

Joint answerto Written Questions P-2184/02, E-2189/02 and E-2190/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The Commission's proposals for amending the detailed rules and conditions for Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector and the emergency measure on scrapping fishing vessels in 2003-2006 are based on the following sources of law.

Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999(1) stipulates that it is the job of the Council to establish the fields of intervention for the structural actions in fisheries, aquaculture and fish processing and marketing.

Article 2(3) goes on to list the types of measure eligible for FIFG assistance. Its final subparagraph states that According to the procedure laid down in Article 4, the Council may adapt this list of measures. Article 4 provides that the Council is to act on a proposal from the Commission under the procedure laid down in Article 37 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission's proposal(2) for amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999(3) is in legal terms in line with the above.

It should also be noted that Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999(4) provides that Operations financed by the Funds shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty, with instruments adopted under it and with Community policies and actions . Accordingly, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 requires that FIFG programming must comply with the goals of the CFP and the multiannual guidance programmes for fishing fleets and states that to this end it may be revised as necessary and in particular at the end of each period of application of the multiannual guidance programmes. Council Decision 97/413/EC(5) dealing with these programmes in fact expires on 31 December 2002. In any case, Article 3(4) states that programming details not yet contained in a multiannual guidance programme are purely indicative.

The Commission is thus required to propose suitable measures starting on 1 January 2003, given that from that date there is no scheduled multiannual guidance programme. Without new provisions, the FIFG programming would become out of date.

This means that, under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Community support frameworks (CSFs), operational programmes (OPs) and single programming documents (SPDs) can be altered in order to remain compatible with the amendments proposed to the FIFG Regulation (assuming these are adopted by the Council). The Commission could then encourage Member States to ask for changes to their CSFs, OPs and SPDs (via the procedure laid down in Article 34(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999), and did indeed indicate its intention of doing so in section 3.7 of its communication on reform of the CFP(6). In point of fact, Article 14(2) of that Regulation allows for such changes at the initiative of the Member State or the Commission in agreement with the Member State following the mid-term evaluation, which according to Article 42 is to be completed by 31 December 2003.

Whatever the result, any reprogramming would in no case alter the total financial allocation to each Member State or the assistance rates already set and so be fully in line with cohesion principles. In fact, by protecting stocks threatened with overexploitation, reprogramming will help ensure continued fishing by those most dependent on it and hence the continuing vitality of the areas that depend primarily on fishing.

If the Commission's proposals are adopted unaltered by the Council, the FIFG funding to be reprogrammed will consist of money not yet spent by the Member States on the measures that are to become ineligible, i.e. building of new vessels, exportation of vessels from the Union, formation of joint fishing enterprises and vessel modernisation other than for improvement of hygiene, health and safety.

The Commission is unable to say how much Member States have not yet spent on measures that are to become ineligible, which will depend on what the Council decides, when the decisions are adopted and the sums already spent by each Member State. The most it could indicate would be the FIFG resources originally programmed in each Member State for measures that its proposals will make ineligible.

Some Member States may even take the opportunity of the reprogramming to introduce other measures which remain eligible but were not originally put forward.

As pointed out in section 3.7 (on the social dimension of the CFP) of its communication on CFP reform(7), the Commission cannot foresee how each Member State intends to achieve the fishing effort reductions that the multiannual stock management plans will entail once adopted by the Council. Likewise, being unable to guess how the Member States will allocate these reductions as between temporary and permanent withdrawal of vessels, it cannot assess how much reprogramming will be needed or the socio-economic impact of these cuts.

However, for purely budgetary purposes the Commission has tried to estimate what would be the maximum additional financing required at Community level. To make this estimate, it has assumed that the funds initially programmed but not yet used by each Member State to support vessel exportation and joint enterprise formation would probably be re-allocated to definitive withdrawal under the special vessel-scrapping scheme. Funding originally for new vessel construction but not yet used by the same Member State could go to mitigating the socio-economic impact of vessel withdrawal.

On these assumptions, the Commission estimates that a maximum of EUR 272 million might be needed for the fleet special scheme and a maximum of EUR 88 million for flanking socio-economic assistance. It anticipates that if implementing the effort reductions arising from the multiannual management plans were to require extra money, a maximum of EUR 32 million could be provided from the special flexibility instrument in 2003 and that beyond that a Member State could resort to reprogramming its Structural Fund resources in the light of its other regional policy and cohesion priorities.

Since these are just estimates of additional needs that might result from decisions still to be taken at Member State level, there has clearly been no way of allocating additional resources to individual Member States, although it is apparent that the northern countries would tend to need most of the additional support.

Turning finally to any cushioning socio-economic action that may be necessary, it will be up to each Member State to decide in the course of reprogramming what resources it wishes to allocate to measures already covered by Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 and what, if any, resources could go to other measures of this type that the Council might introduce when negotiating on the Commission's proposals.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).

(2) COM(2002) 187 final.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fishery sector.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

(5) Council Decision 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 on objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 in the aim of achieving a sustainable balance between resources and their exploitation, OJ L 175, 3.7.1997. Amended by Decision 2002/70/EC of 28 June 2002, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(6) COM(2002) 181 final.

(7) COM(2002) 181 final.