WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/02 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reprogramming of the FIFG.
Date: 2002-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing arrangements, FIFG, Structural Funds, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, economic planning, fishing fleet, fishing industry, legal basis, redevelopment aid, sectoral aid

C 52 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

modernisation, joint enterprises and the export of vessels. This proposal entails the reprogramming of the
funds earmarked for these objectives in the programming documents, which were the result of an earlier
commitment, often achieved after tough negotiations between the Commission and the other parties
involved at national, regional and local level.

1.
Could the Commission provide information on the amount of FIFG funding which will be
reprogrammed, broken down by Member State, and can it say to what other objectives this amount will
be allocated?

Could the Commission provide information on the amount of Community funding to be made
in order to compensate for this

in addition to the FIFG funding already programmed,

2.
available,
reprogramming, broken down by Member State?

Could the Commission say what type of socio-economic measures it will adopt in this connection,

3.
and what amounts will be involved for each Member State?

(2003/C 52 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Reprogramming of the FIFG

(19 July 2002)

In its proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) approved by the College of
Commissioners on 28 May 2002,
the Commission proposes abolishing aid for fleet renewal and
modernisation, joint enterprises and the export of vessels. This proposal entails the reprogramming of
the funds earmarked for these objectives in the programming documents, which were the result of an
earlier commitment, often achieved after tough negotiations between the Commission and the other
parties involved at national, regional and local level.

Does the Commission believe that unilaterally abandoning this commitment and consequently
1.
reprogramming the funds allocated to the objectives set previously, without the agreement of the other
parties involved, does not represent a breach of Community law? If so, on the basis of what arguments can
this reprogramming be considered lawful?

2. What moral right does the Commission have to ditch these commitments and disregard the trust
placed in them by the negotiating parties at all levels (national, regional and local) in the Member States, as
well as by economic operators who have made investments on the basis of these commitments and who
will suffer enormous economic damage as a result of reprogramming?

3. What measures will the Commission take to repair the damage which its proposals will cause for
economic operators?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2184/02, E-2189/02 and E-2190/02
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The Commission’s proposals for amending the detailed rules and conditions for Community structural
assistance in the fisheries sector and the emergency measure on scrapping fishing vessels in 2003-2006 are
based on the following sources of law.

Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 (1) stipulates that it is the job of the Council to ‘establish the
fields of intervention for the structural actions’ in fisheries, aquaculture and fish processing and marketing.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/135

Article 2(3) goes on to list the types of measure eligible for FIFG assistance. Its final subparagraph states
that ‘According to the procedure laid down in Article 4, the Council may adapt this list of measures.’
Article 4 provides that the Council is to act on a proposal from the Commission under the procedure laid
down in Article 37 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission’s proposal (2) for amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 (3) is in legal terms in line
with the above.

It should also be noted that Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (4) provides that ‘Operations
financed by the Funds … shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty, with instruments
adopted under it and with Community policies and actions …’. Accordingly, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 2792/1999 requires that FIFG programming must comply with the goals of
the CFP and the
multiannual guidance programmes for fishing fleets and states that ‘to this end it may be revised as
the multiannual guidance
necessary and in particular at
programmes’. Council Decision 97/413/EC (5) dealing with these programmes
in fact expires on
31 December 2002. In any case, Article 3(4) states that programming details not yet contained in a
multiannual guidance programme are ‘purely indicative’.

the end of each period of application of

The Commission is thus required to propose suitable measures starting on 1 January 2003, given that
from that date there is no scheduled multiannual guidance programme. Without new provisions, the FIFG
programming would become out of date.

This means that, under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Community support frameworks
(CSFs), operational programmes (OPs) and single programming documents (SPDs) can be altered in order
to remain compatible with the amendments proposed to the FIFG Regulation (assuming these are adopted
by the Council). The Commission could then encourage Member States to ask for changes to their CSFs,
OPs and SPDs (via the procedure laid down in Article 34(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999), and did
indeed indicate its intention of doing so in section 3.7 of its communication on reform of the CFP (6).
In point of fact, Article 14(2) of that Regulation allows for such changes ‘at the initiative of the Member
State or the Commission in agreement with the Member State’ following the mid-term evaluation, which
according to Article 42 is to be completed by 31 December 2003.

Whatever the result, any reprogramming would in no case alter the total financial allocation to each
Member State or the assistance rates already set and so be fully in line with cohesion principles. In fact, by
protecting stocks threatened with overexploitation, reprogramming will help ensure continued fishing by
those most dependent on it and hence the continuing vitality of the areas that depend primarily on fishing.

If the Commission’s proposals are adopted unaltered by the Council, the FIFG funding to be reprogrammed
will consist of money not yet spent by the Member States on the measures that are to become ineligible,
i.e. building of new vessels, exportation of vessels from the Union, formation of joint fishing enterprises
and vessel modernisation other than for improvement of hygiene, health and safety.

The Commission is unable to say how much Member States have not yet spent on measures that are to
become ineligible, which will depend on what the Council decides, when the decisions are adopted and the
sums already spent by each Member State. The most it could indicate would be the FIFG resources
originally programmed in each Member State for measures that its proposals will make ineligible.

Some Member States may even take the opportunity of the reprogramming to introduce other measures
which remain eligible but were not originally put forward.

As pointed out in section 3.7 (on the social dimension of the CFP) of its communication on CFP reform (6)
COM(2002) 181 final., the Commission cannot foresee how each Member State intends to achieve the
fishing effort reductions that the multiannual stock management plans will entail once adopted by the
Council. Likewise, being unable to guess how the Member States will allocate these reductions as between
temporary and permanent withdrawal of vessels,
it cannot assess how much reprogramming will be
needed or the socio-economic impact of these cuts.

C 52 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

for purely budgetary purposes the Commission has tried to estimate what would be the
However,
maximum additional financing required at Community level. To make this estimate, it has assumed that
the funds initially programmed but not yet used by each Member State to support vessel exportation and
joint enterprise formation would probably be re-allocated to definitive withdrawal under the special vessel-
scrapping scheme. Funding originally for new vessel construction but not yet used by the same Member
State could go to mitigating the socio-economic impact of vessel withdrawal.

On these assumptions, the Commission estimates that a maximum of EUR 272 million might be needed
for the fleet special scheme and a maximum of EUR 88 million for flanking socio-economic assistance. It
anticipates that if implementing the effort reductions arising from the multiannual management plans were
to require extra money, a maximum of EUR 32 million could be provided from the special flexibility
instrument in 2003 and that beyond that a Member State could resort to reprogramming its Structural
Fund resources in the light of its other regional policy and cohesion priorities.

Since these are just estimates of additional needs that might result from decisions still to be taken at
Member State level, there has clearly been no way of allocating additional resources to individual Member
States, although it is apparent that the northern countries would tend to need most of the additional
support.

Turning finally to any cushioning socio-economic action that may be necessary, it will be up to each
Member State to decide in the course of reprogramming what resources it wishes to allocate to measures
already covered by Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 and what, if any, resources could go to other measures
of this type that the Council might introduce when negotiating on the Commission’s proposals.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1263/1999 on the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG).
(2) COM(2002) 187 final.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fishery sector.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.
(5) Council Decision 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 on objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community
fisheries sector during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 in the aim of achieving a sustainable
balance between resources and their exploitation, OJ L 175, 3.7.1997. Amended by Decision 2002/70/EC of
28 June 2002, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(6) COM(2002) 181 final.

(2003/C 52 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2185/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2002)

Subject: Establishment of a pan-European air traffic control system

I refer to my Written Question E-2733/00 (1) dated 1 September 2000 on the establishment of a pan-
European air traffic control system and to the answer, dated 5 October 2000, given by Mrs de Palacio on
behalf of the Commission. Given that the mid-air collision over Lake Constance, which occurred during
the night of 1 July and in which 71 people were killed, could probably have been prevented if a pan-
European air traffic control system had been in operation, would the Commission indicate:

1. whether or not it takes the view that, in the light of that disaster, a pan-European air traffic control
system should be established as rapidly as possible, even in the face of the resistance put up by the
pampered clique of air traffic controllers,

2. what stage has been reached in the ‘Single European Airspace’ project, which the Commission began

in 1999, and,