WRITTEN QUESTION P-0701/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the FIFG in Galicia

According to reports in the press(1), the Regional Government of Galicia has presented plans in Brussels for a biological rest period for vessels in the Great Sole fishing grounds, and has requested authorisation to use FIFG funds to pay for this. It seems that the rest period will run for 45 days, 30 of which will have to be taken consecutively in the period from July to October. Ship owners will be able to choose when the 15 remaining days are taken.

This rest period will affect not only Galicia but also fleets from the Basque Country, Cantabria and Asturias, since the autonomous governments of these regions will pay allowances to the companies and crews from FIFG funds for the 45 rest days, and the social security for that period. The Regional Government of Galicia will only pay allowances to ship owners and fishermen for the 30 days, with the fishing companies having to meet the social security costs for the 45-day rest period and pay allowances to the crews for the remaining 15 days.

Could the Commission explain why the fishing industry in Galicia is receiving differential treatment when there is no reason for this? Does Galicia have less available FIFG funding than the other regions mentioned above, meaning that its fleet does not receive equal funding?

How much of the FIFG funding for Galicia, the Basque Country, Cantabria and Asturias for the financial year 2003 has already been implemented in the first two months of 2003, and what is the remaining balance for each autonomous community?

What has been the incidence of the Prestige disaster on the FIFG funds allocated to Galicia for the financial year 2003? Could the Commission provide precise figures in this respect? How will the measures needed to ensure economic and social cohesion between the fishing sector in Galicia and the rest of the Community be financed?

Is there still FIFG funding available in Galicia for renewing the fleet, restructuring the fishing industry, implementing social measures, compensating for other biological rest periods, developing aquaculture, protecting coastal areas, carrying out plans for the construction of port facilities and the processing, marketing and promotion of fisheries products, helping producer organisations to market their products and making financial contributions to the cost of unemployment and early retirement pensions for fishermen?

(1) Faro de Vigo, 26 February 2003.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the Spanish authorities recently notified the Commission of a state aid scheme to grant allowances to fishermen and shipowners for the temporary cessation of fishing activities in the Great Sole. The Commission is currently examining this draft legislation.

Within the FIFG operational programme for the Spanish Objective 1 regions, which is a multiregional programme, Galicia has by far the largest FIFG contribution of the Spanish regions.

The Commission will not receive details of implementation of the 2003 annual instalment until 2004, in accordance with Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds(1).

According to the information available to the Commission, the Prestige disaster has not led to a reduction of the FIFG allocation for Galicia. In addition, on 20 December 2002 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2372/2002 instituting specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture, affected by the oil spills from the Prestige(2), which will provide access to additional, non-regionalised, FIFG funding.

The other measures referred to by the Honourable Member are part of the integrated operational programmes for regional development and the multiregional programmes under the Community support framework for Objective 1 of the Structural Funds in Spain, including the FIFG.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.