WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Aid received by the Canary islands in the period 1991-2001. Outermost regions.
Date: 2001-11-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Structural Funds, economic consequence, labour market, peripheral region, project evaluation, regional aid

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2002/C 301 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3075/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Subject: Aid received by the Canary islands in the period 1991-2001. Outermost regions

2001 marks the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1911/91 (1) of
26 June 1991 on the application of the provisions of Community law to the Canary Islands.

With a view to assessing the impact of Community policies and aid in this outermost region, can the
Commission state the total and separate amounts of aid received by the Canaries in the period 1991-2001
from the ERDF, the ESF, the FIFG and the EAGGF Guidance Section, as well as the total amounts under the
EAGGF Guarantee Section? What impact did such financial aid have on GDP and increased employment in
the Canaries?

(1) OJ L 171, 29.6.1991, p. 1.

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund

As far as the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF-O, FIFG) are concerned, the programming periods
unfortunately do not coincide with the ten-year period (1991-2001) mentioned by the Honourable
Member.

The programming periods in question are 1989-1993, 1994-1999 and 2000-2006, and, except for
EAGGF (Guidance) and FIFG, it is therefore not possible to indicate the figures for the period 1991-2001.
The closest proxy to the ten-year period concerned would be to take the sum of
two
programming periods. The figures in Table 1 give (for ERDF, ESF and REGIS) the total specific structural
fund aid allocations to the Canary Islands decided during these two periods. There were also some general
interventions for which specific regional breakdowns are not available and which are to be added to the
figures of Table 1.

the first

On an indicative basis, the Community Support Framework 1994-1999 estimated that the Canary Islands
would benefit from about EUR 530 million in aid from these interventions.

The Community finance provided by the ERDF during the 1989-1999 period, EUR 1 650 million, was
intended to promote economic growth and job creation in the Canary Islands, in particular by improving
the economic infrastructure and social facilities, encouraging relocation of appropriate productive activities

C 301 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

and developing the area’s endogenous potential. The main measures included transport and tele-
communications systems to contribute to reducing the isolation of the islands; water and electricity
supply; water treatment and purification of industrial waste water;
improvement of care and hospital
facilities; measures to encourage the production and services sector and provision of infrastructure to
support economic activity; development of tourism (in particular in qualitative terms); development of the
rural environment and fisheries; provision of infrastructure for the education system and human resource
development.

As regards the ESF, the funds allocated (cid:1) EUR 545 million for 1989-1999 (cid:1) went largely towards
technical vocational training and lifelong learning, integration and re-integration of the unemployed, with
the result of considerably reducing their numbers. For 2000 and 2001, a total of EUR 79 million was set
aside.

Under the EAGGF (Guidance Section), a total of EUR 133 million was spent on operations in the Canaries
in the period 1991-2001, including: an Objective 1 operational programme, a programme under the
Leader (I, II and +) Community Initiative and part of a REGIS (I and II) Community Initiative (Table 2). An
ex post evaluation of the Objective 1 operational programme for the period 1994-1999 is under way. The
recent assessment of the Leader II programme by the Spanish authorities concluded that it had a very
positive effect.

A specific figure is given for the Community initiative REGIS, with a global amount of EUR 342 million
for the period 1989-1999, which had a particular role to play in the Canary Islands, by strengthening the
local and urban development, the SMEs and technical assistance.

Between 1991 and 2001, the FIFG contributed approximately EUR 96 million to restructuring the Canary
Islands’
fishing fleet, developing aquaculture and modernising the fish processing industries in the
framework of the adaptation of capacity to available resources.

Finally, the Cohesion Fund has been in operation in Spain since 1993. Until 1999, total allocations from
this fund for projects in the Canary Islands amount to EUR 263 million.

The current evidence, as shown by different evaluation reports, as well as by the figures about GDP
increase and fall in unemployment (Table 4), indicates a significant contribution of the various funds to the
economy. There has also been clear progress in infrastructures development contributing to offset the
structural deficit of the archipielago. In the current programming period 2000-2006, significant additional
resources, estimated at over EUR 2 700 million, have been allocated by the Structural Funds to the Canary
Islands.

EAGGF (Guarantee Section) (Common organisation of the markets and Poseican).

Agricultural production in the Canary Islands benefits fully from the CAP:

(cid:1) via the common organisation of the markets, and

(cid:1) the provisions of the Poseican programme set up in 1992 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of
15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural
products (1)), which aims to adjust Community policies to take account of the specific problems faced
by the Islands.

The expenditure on common organisation of the markets relates mainly to the market in bananas, with
total expenditure of EUR 829 million out of EUR 871 million between 1994 and 2001 (see Table 3).

As regards the agricultural measures taken as part of the Poseican programme, these have compensated to
a large extent for the constraints on agriculture in the Canary Islands due to their remoteness:

(cid:1) the special supply arrangements provide for exemptions from levies and/or customs duties for
imported from non-
essential agricultural products for human consumption or local processing,
member countries, and for grants for the supply of such products from Member States;
total
expenditure for the period 1993-2001 was EUR 213 million for plant products and EUR 616 million
for animal products (see Table 3);

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/3

(cid:1) moreover, direct aid for local agricultural production, with a view to increasing its competitiveness,
totalled EUR 67 million and EUR 33 million for plant and animal products respectively, between 1999
and 2001 (see Table 3).

In 1999, the impact of these measures was evaluated in detail. The Commission report on the measures to
implement Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty (2) sets out the results of this assessment, which were broadly
positive. The purpose of the Commission proposal drawn up on the basis of this evaluation was to
simplify, consolidate and improve the existing framework by making the necessary adjustments. This
proposal resulted in the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1451/2001 of 28 June 2001 amending
Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community
structural assistance in the fisheries sector (3).

Overall performance, GDP per inhabitant and unemployment

Concerning the impact of the Community aid on gross domestic product (GDP) and increased employment
in the Canary islands, there is no detailed evaluation available. Whilst this aid clearly has had, as
mentioned, a positive impact on the socio-economic situation, at this stage it is not possible to distinguish
it clearly from that of other factors notably national and regional policies, such as taxation regimes, social
benefit schemes or labour market policies. It also has to be borne in mind that despite the presence of
Community support, the growth performance in the region will depend on macroeconomic evolutions.
The drastic deceleration in GDP growth per capita from 1992 to 1996 shows the effect of an international
financial crisis. Nevertheless, the robust growth rates and strong fall in unemployment during the years
1995 to 1999 indicate that the situation in the Canaries has been improving markedly during the period
of implementation of the special programmes by the Community, while these have most likely cushioned
the negative impact of the adverse economic climate.

Table 4 shows the developments in GDP and employment since 1991. The GDP per capita in relation to
the Community’s average is not recorded prior to 1995, as the methodology of calculation was changed
and figures are therefore not comparable. GDP per head (index EU-15 = 100) has increased from 75 % in
1995 to 77 % in 1998, and unemployment fallen from 22 % in 1989 (24 % in 1991) to 14,5 % in 1999.

A copy of the tables has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of the
Parliament.

(1) OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.
(2) COM(2000) 147 final.
(3) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3282/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2001)

Subject: Environmental pollution in San Claudio (Oviedo (cid:1) Asturias, Spain)

The ‘San Claudio Aire Limpio’ environmental association (Amascal) has lodged complaints with various
authorities in the Spanish region of Asturias concerning the air and soil pollution produced by the Indasa
company, which is based in San Claudio, in the district of Oviedo (Asturias, Spain). In its smelting furnace
the company uses scrap metal, paint waste, ink and lubricating oils, all of which are regarded as hazardous
waste products. The air and soil pollution from heavy metals (lead, cadmium, etc.) which the company
generates in a location only 300 metres from the town centre (and thus in breach of Spanish law, which
requires such industries to be at least 2000 metres away from inhabited areas) makes the local population
fear for their health and for the future of the area in which they live.

In 1966 the European Union’s predecessor adopted a framework directive intended to improve air quality
and there are also Community laws laying down emission ceilings for each Member State. Furthermore, as