WRITTEN QUESTION P-0065/98 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Commission (15 January 1998)

Subject: Witholding of FIFG funds for new constructions and modernization

At the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries' working group on fleet structures on 17 December 1997, the Commision representative, Mr Samaras, presented the Commission document on the adoption of the Fourth Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MGP IV).

That document showed that the Commission had no intention of granting any aid for the construction or modernization of vessels to Member States that had not met the fleet reduction objectives set by MGP III.

The data relating to Italy are not definitive, but indicate that it had problems meeting the objectives. There seems to be a shortfall of 35% (in terms of tonnage) or 36% (in terms of power) for trawlers, and of 5% (tonnage and power) for the other segments of the fleet, giving a total shortfall of 12% in relation to the targets set. The Commission considers, therefore, that Italy should be refused access to FIFG funds for fleet renewal and modernization despite the fact that that Member State applies a special system whereby new vessels are constructed only when vessels of a greater tonnage have been scrapped.

At the same time, it should be noted impartially that other Member States, including the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Sweden, achieved the objectives set by MGP III on the basis of fishing activity reductions (days spent at sea).

Does the Commission agree that Italy could demand that the same conditions be applied to it as to the other Member States, by taking into account the reduction in the number of days spent fishing at sea effected over a long period in Italy, which undoubtedly has the effect of reducing the overall fishing effort?

Does the Commission agree that in actual fact Italy has achieved the objectives set in MGP III, in that it has adopted an effective system of reducing the fishing effort, under which FIFG funds for new constructions are granted only on the scrapping of vessels whose tonnage is equivalent to 120% of the tonnage of the new vessels?

Does the Commission agree that the refusal to grant FIFG funds is detrimental to the whole sector, and particularly to workers employed in it, not least on safety grounds?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (23 February 1998)

A necessary condition for the granting of aid for fleet modernisation and construction under the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) is that the objectives of the multi-annual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the Member State concerned are respected. The only exception to this concerns modernisations that do not contribute to an increase in fishing effort.

Under the MAGP IV, several Member States have opted to achieve part of their objectives by means of a reduction in activity. To do this, the fisheries concerned must be clearly identified and a programme for controlling the access of individual vessels to these fisheries must be put into place. The option to reduce activity remains available to Italy provided that these criteria are respected.

In order to help Member States to reduce capacity, aid is available for the withdrawal of vessels. Aid for construction is available only to replace capacity withdrawn without public assistance and only if the fleet is below the MAGP objectives.

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the data on which the Italian MAGP is based are provisional. It is the responsibility of the Italian administration to provide the Commission with timely and reliable data.

It is true that a system of withdrawing more capacity than constructed, as described by the Honourable Member, will lead to a decrease in capacity, but as long as Italy does not respect the objectives of the MAGP it is not legally possible to apply such a system.

The Commission does not consider its policy to be counterproductive. The rates for construction aid are broadly similar to those for withdrawal, so granting financial aid for withdrawal without new construction is a much more cost effective way of removing excess capacity.

The Commission considers that the granting of modernisation or construction aid to Member States above their MAGP objectives is not the best use of public money. The granting of such aid acts as an effective incentive for those Member States that achieve their MAGP objectives.

It is recognised that a reduction in capacity may have a short term negative impact on employment, and the accompanying measures financed by the FIFG are intended to counteract this. In the long term there are considerable benefits to be gained from the restructuring of the fleet, which is a critical element in the sustainability of the sector. Without a reduction in capacity the long term impact on employment would be much greater.