WRITTEN QUESTION No. 92/98 by Antonio TAJANI to the Commission. Freeze on FIFG funding for the construction and modernization of vessels in Italy
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 áconstruction against decommissioning of a larger tonnageí 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