WRITTEN QUESTION E-1556/01

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Assessment of the PESCA Community initiative

The Community initiative PESCA (1994-1999), with a budget of nearly 300 million, made it possible to carry out a series of projects devoted to economic diversification in districts heavily dependent on fishing. Although the level of implementation

was only 53,29 % ( 159,42 million out of the 299,13 million earmarked) it was greatly appreciated by the fisheries sector and the economic and social actors in these districts. They were disappointed at its disappearance as a Community initiative, although the Commission assures them that the measures in favour of economic diversification in these regions will continue, albeit in the context of other programmes financed by the FIFG and supplemented by the ERDF and the ESF.

However, at a time like the present, when the negotiations for a new fisheries agreement with Morocco have broken down, it is evident that despite this initiative the achievements in the sphere of economic diversification are far from adequate and the economy of various districts such as Barbarte, Barbanza or Morrazo depends totally on the existence of this agreement.

Has the Commission carried out an assessment of the positive achievements of the PESCA initiative (1994-1999)?

What were the reasons for only 53 % of the budget being executed? Why was the level of execution in Spain only 44 %? What were the total amounts allocated and actually forwarded to Spain via structural measures and the Community's internal policies during the previous programming period for the fisheries sector?

What measures is the Commission devising in the current programming period to promote economic diversification in the regions heavily dependent on fishing?

What is the Commission's opinion of the fact that in the previous programming period these measures were part of a specific Community initiative and now they are not? What differences does it see?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The Commission intends to make an ex-post assessment of the fishery structural programmes for the period 1994-1999 and of those of the PESCA Community initatitive. These programmes will not be completely woulnd up until the end of the 2001 and the reports on their execution will not be available until mid-2002.

There are a number of reasons for the relatively modest execution percentages for PESCA cited by the Honourable Member. First, the execution date on which they are based is 31 December 1999. For these programmes execution has not however been in direct proportion to elapsed time. After a relatively slow start they have almost always recorded an acceleration at the end of the period. Second, the percentages are for the payments made by the Commission and there is always a delay between actual project execution on the ground and the corresponding payment.

On 31 December 2000 total payments made by the Commission for the PESCA programmes represented just over 64 % of the total budget. Payment of a further 11 to 16 % is anticipated in 2001. The other 20 to 25 % cannot be spent before closure of the programmes in 2002.

On Spain in particular, on 31 December 2000 Community aid actually paid to final recipients amounted to 29 million (about 62 % of budget) under the PESCA programme and to 1 051 million (about 92 % of budget) under the Objectives 1 and 5(a) programmes of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.

In the new programming periods socioeconomic diversification in fishery-dependent zones can be achieved through either specific fishery sector programmes (within the limits of eligibility for FIFG financing) or integrated regional development programmes under Structural Fund Objectives 1 and 2 part-financed from the European Regional Development and Social Funds.

Non-renewal of PESCA was one of the outcomes of the very wide consensus in the Community Institutions that the Structural Funds should be rationalised and in particular that after 1999 there should be only four Community initiatives instead of 14.