92000E2598

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/00

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Community funding of the fisheries sector in Portugal

Bearing in mind:

- the reply to Written Question E-1525/00(1);

- the hearing organised by the Court of Auditors on the Propesca Programme in Portugal and the implementation of the PESCA initiative which, according to reliable sources, came to the conclusion that the EU withdrew more than ESC 3,5 billion from Portugal owing to delays in the assessment of applications and allocation of funding; and

- the importance of the fisheries sector for Portugal;

Can the Commission say:

1. What, in the Commission's view, are the reasons for the low level of implementation of the PESCA initiative and of programmes financed under the FIFG in general and those for Portugal in particular?

2. What measures did the Commission take during the period 1994-1999, and what action will it take in future, in order to guarantee the correct implementation of funding under the PESCA initiative and the FIFG in the previous financial period, particularly with regard to Portugal?

3. What consequences will this low level of implementation have with regard to discussions on the allocation of FIFG funding for the new financial period?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 49.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

1. The main reasons including with regard to Portugal for the delays and low implementation rates in respect of the Pesca Community Initiative (CI) and the operational programmes (OPs) funded under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) are the late publication of national framework legislation, the restructuring of the relevant administrative departments (Directorate-General for Fisheries and Aquaculture), and the shortage of human resources for managing and monitoring operational assistance at national level.

2. During Community support framework (CSF) II, the Commission adopted a number of measures designed to ensure that Pesca CI and FIFG appropriations were applied correctly in the various Member States. With regard to Portugal, inter alia during the implementation phase a number of warnings were issued at Monitoring Committee level and letters were sent pointing out to the national authorities that the accumulated arrears needed to be made up. In response, from the second quarter of 1998 onwards the situation returned to normal.

3. The national authorities' effort to make up the arrears meant that it was possible for the entire FIFG budget available to be committed at the end of CSF II's term and for the objectives to be achieved satisfactorily. Discussion of the FIFG appropriation for CSF III (2000-06), inter alia as regards Portugal, was therefore not adversely affected.