WRITTEN QUESTION No. 92/98 by Antonio TAJANI to the Commission. Freeze on FIFG funding for the construction and modernization of vessels in Italy
Date: 1998-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, TAJANI
Subjects: FIFG, Italy, building subsidy, fishing fleet, modernisation aid, shipbuilding, terms for aid

C 223/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17. 7. 98

(98/C 223/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0092/98

by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission

(20 January 1998)

Subject: Freeze on FIFG funding for the construction and modernization of vessels in Italy

The Commission recently adopted multiannual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets of the Member States
in respect of the period 1 January 1997 › 31 December 2001 (MGP IV). The MGP IV fleet reduction targets have
been set on the basis of the extent to which the MGP III (1992-1996) targets were met.

The  figures  currently  available  for  Italy,  which  point  to  a  shortfall  of  12%  with  respect  to  the  overall  fleet
reduction targets laid down in MGP III are, for the moment, still provisional and will therefore be checked by a
joint committee comprising Commission and Italian national officials.

In the meantime, however, the Commission has decided that no aids for the construction or modernization of
vessels will be paid under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) to those Member States which
failed to meet the MGP III reduction targets.

In the case of Italy, this suspension of structural aid will be counter-productive in view of the now established
system under which aid for the construction of new vessels covered by the MGP targets is granted only subject to
decommissioning of the equivalent of 120% of the tonnage of the new vessels.

The construction of any new vessels in Italy therefore in practice entails a reduction of the capacity of the existing
fleet and thus contributes to the achievement of the MGP targets. Furthermore, the freeze on aid takes no account
of  the  need  to  bring  the  Italian  fleet  up  to  national  and  European  health  and  safety  standards  and  the  other
standards required to ensure efficiency and competitiveness.

Would the Commission not agree that the (cid:145)construction against decommissioning of a larger tonnage(cid:146) method
constitutes an effective means of fleet reduction and renewal and that, in addition to making it harder to reduce
the size of the fleet, the suspension of construction and modernization aids is counter-productive in terms of both
the quality of the fleet itself and safety at work for fishermen?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(27 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.

Aid  is  available  for  the  withdrawal  of  capacity.  Aid  for  construction  is  available  only  to  replace  capacity
withdrawn without public aid 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.