WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/00 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Assessment of MAP IV.
Date: 2000-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community fisheries, FIFG, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing fleet

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/177

But enlargement must not only be measured in terms of growth in trade: the benefits of extending the
internal market to more countries must also be assessed in terms of the simplification and standardisation
of rules and procedures, competitive practices and intellectual property.

The Commission has not conducted any specific survey of the impact on trade, (cid:145)trade creation(cid:146) or (cid:145)trade
diversion(cid:146). Some of the comprehensive studies that have been carried out relate partly to trade. (1)

(1)

(cid:145)L(cid:146)impact de l(cid:146)Ølargissement (cid:224) l(cid:146)est sur l(cid:146)emploi et les salaires dans les Etats membres de l(cid:146)Union(cid:146), Boeri, Br(cid:252)ckner
et al, Berlin, 215 p., March 2000; (cid:145)The impact of enlargement on small and medium sized enterprises in the EU(cid:146),
RWI, Essen, EPRC Glasgow 216 p., October 2000.

(2001/C 136 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Assessment of MAP IV

The current fisheries guidance programme (MAP IV) clearly has done little hitherto to reduce overcapacity;
indeed, fisheries activity has if anything intensified in some areas.

Since sustainable fisheries are a matter of fundamental public interest, the Commission is asked:

1. How does the Commission assess MAP IV(cid:146)s successes hitherto?

2. Can it provide figures in support of its assessment?

3. To what extent do figures derived from the assessment made hitherto impact on future allocations of

Structural Fund appropriations?

4. What approaches is the Commission adopting to ensuring MAP IV(cid:146)s eventual success?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s assessment of the current Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) was outlined
in a recent report (1).

1.
The Commission considers that the MAGP(cid:146)s have not succeeded in reducing fleet capacity to bring it
into line with the available resources. However, the programmes have been largely effective in preventing
an increase in capacity.

2.
The MAGP III (1992-1996) is acknowledged as representing a significant step in the right direction
by requiring an overall reduction in capacity of about 10 % for the European fleet. The MAGP IV (1997-
2001) is less ambitious, however, calling for an overall reduction in fishing effort of 5 %. This contrasts
with the conclusion of the (cid:145)Lassen(cid:146) report, named after the chairman of the independent group of experts
set up to advise the Commission before the start of the MAGP IV, that fishing effort is currently on
average about 40 % too high in European waters. A report of the scientific, technical and economic
committee for fisheries, issued in May 2000, endorsed this view. In terms of capacity the MAGP IV calls
for a reduction of just 3 % in 5 years. The remaining 2 % reduction in fishing effort is to be achieved by
reducing activity.

This assessment of

3.
the MAGP will have no immediate influence on the
distribution of structural fund credits. However, this does not preclude an adjustment of the credits to
reflect changes in the fleet policy in the future.

the performance of

C 136 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The Commission considers that the MAGP IV should be strengthened by applying larger reduction
4.
rates for the remainder of the period and by requiring that the additional reductions be achieved purely in
terms of capacity. It also advocates the extension by one year of the period of the MAGP IV in order to
allow the future of the fleet structural policy to be considered in the context of the reform of the common
fisheries policy during 2002. These proposals are currently the subject of discussion with the Member
States.

(1) COM(2000) 272 final.

(2001/C 136 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/00

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Payment arrangements for the Comenius education programme

There has recently been a steep rise in questions complaining about long-delayed or non-existent payments
of
funds committed under the Comenius programme. The continued existence of projects is being
threatened, confirmed travel arrangements are having to be cancelled for lack of financing, usually after
unavoidable expenditure and far from inconsiderable effort have been put into them. This is causing high
levels of frustration with European programmes and institutions. Citizens who have shown confidence in
Commission promises are being made to wait in vain for committed or promised payments to come
through.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. What is responsible for the delayed payment of committed funding?

2. Does the Commission realise what the consequences are when promised projects that have been
approved by the Commission have to be shelved or dropped altogether because they cannot be
sustained without financial support from the programme?

3. What action will the Commission take to guarantee financing for such programmes without delays?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

The delays in the payment of advances for decentralised actions under the Socrates programme are
exceptional and are due essentially to the fact that 2000 is the first year of the implementation of the new
programme. The decision establishing the second phase of Socrates was not adopted until the first half of
2000.

The new programme added new elements to the management of the programme. There were also delays
in the nomination of the national agencies by some Member States, as well as in the completion of the
agencies(cid:146) work programmes and their operating budgets. On the Commission(cid:146)s side, the development of a
new standardised form of operating agreement between the Commission and the national agencies,
providing for closer supervision of the accounting rules in line with the increased responsibility of the
national agencies for the management of decentralised funds, required more time than was originally
foreseen. Despite these difficulties all steps have been taken by the Commission in order to proceed with
the payments for decentralised actions as quickly as possible.

As far as the situation in Germany is concerned, the Commission has already authorised the transfer of
funds under the operating agreement with the P(cid:228)dagogischer Austauschdienst (PAD), which cover some of
the current costs of the national agency. As regards the funds for the decentralised action, including those
forming part of the Comenius programme, PAD was sent the relevant contract on 14 September.
However, PAD insisted that the contract be divided into parts so that it would not be responsible for
forwarding some of the funds to the other German national agency (Carl-Duisberg Gesellschaft (CDG))
which will carry out part of the Comenius action.