Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2011/0212(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0447/2011

Texts tabled :

A7-0447/2011

Debates :

PV 13/03/2012 - 18
CRE 13/03/2012 - 18

Votes :

PV 14/03/2012 - 9.1
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2012)0074

Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 13 March 2012 - Strasbourg OJ edition

18. European Fisheries Fund (debate)
Video of the speeches
Minutes
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the report by João Ferreira, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, as regards certain provisions relating to financial management for certain Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (COM(2011)0484 - C7-0219/2011 - 2011/0212(COD)) (A7-0447/2011).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  João Ferreira, rapporteur.(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the economic and financial crisis has been, and is being, expressed differently in the various Member States. This reflects the existing divergences and imbalances; it reflects the inequalities existing between the Member States. These inequalities are expressed in multiple ways. One of these concerns the capacity for accessing and using EU funds.

The countries with weaker economies, which need more EU funding, are often also those with the greatest difficulties in accessing these funds. For years, this resulted, in large measure, from the restrictions on public investment, imposed under the pretext of the Stability and Growth Pact, which made it hard to mobilise the required national effort. These restrictions are currently being greatly exacerbated by the IMF and EU programmes under way in countries like Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

The political choices set out in these programmes are leading the countries that have been bailed out and their populations into a tragic and profound economic recession, destroying a major part of their economic and social fabric, and affecting both their capacity for private investment – particularly, small and medium-sized enterprises – and public investment, which is and has been reduced to record lows in some cases.

The coastal communities most dependent on fishing cannot avoid this general framework. There is an aggravating factor in this specific case: years of decline and breakdown resulting from the specific changes that have occurred in this sector can be added to this general framework.

There has long been a need for this Commission proposal to increase EU cofinancing for these countries and to reduce correspondingly national contributions; it has come too late.

It has already been two years since the European Commission itself pointed out significant under-execution of the European Fisheries Fund. It even identified the causes of this under-execution. This proposal, then, has long been needed and has come regrettably late. For this reason, it is clear that the need to adopt it is urgent and we believe it is important to adopt it at first reading. However, despite this, let us not forget the limitations that this proposal also clearly demonstrates. I also wish to express some of these here, in the hope that the Commission will take due account of them.

We believe that the Commission should analyse the extent to which this change actually provides the Member States with the funds necessary for supporting projects and the recovery of their economies, as provided for in the Commission proposal. It should be noted that the restrictions imposed on investment by the bailout programmes could, even under the new conditions, continue to make it hard to mobilise the required national contribution of 15% and 40%, for eligible and ineligible regions respectively, under the umbrella of the Convergence Objective.

As such, we believe the Commission should consider the need to remove restrictions on investment, on the one hand, but also the possibility of reducing national cofinancing even further. Moreover, it should be stressed that the Commission proposal does not increase the budget available to each Member State. The practical result of this choice, as a result of the reduction in national contributions for the countries in the greatest difficulties, will be to channel an overall sum of investment into the sector that is comparatively smallest in relation to that which was initially envisaged. As a result, the prospects for growth opened up by the investment made in these Member States will be reduced. Once again, it is the principle of cohesion that could be under threat, so the Commission should consider the possibility of increasing the funds made available to these countries.

Furthermore, the rules for calculating deficits in public accounts should separate spending on investment from other public spending; the former should not be considered, so as not to prioritise so-called budgetary consolidation over economic growth, without which any consolidation will be rendered unviable in the medium and long term.

I shall conclude, Mr President, by asking you why the regulation establishing Union financial measures for the implementation of the common fisheries policy has not been included in the Commission proposal. This regulation funds very important areas, such as the collection of data and scientific opinions, and the percentages of EU cofinancing in this area are generally low: 50% at most. Why was this regulation – and the measures that finance it – not also covered by the Commission proposal?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it is obvious that many of our Member States face a lot of difficulties relating to the economic crisis. I do not want to undermine the severity of the problems and, of course, I do not expect to solve these problems through today’s proposal. As you perhaps know, however, the Commission committed at the Euro summit of July 2011 to provide more liquidity to the Member States most affected by the crisis by increasing the cofinancing rates in EU Funds, and this proposal follows on from that.

I think the proposal is a positive measure: we are trying to facilitate the absorption of the funds. We are trying to help Member States facing difficulties, but, of course, the crisis, and all the problems deriving from it, are a very important issue that cannot be solved in the margins of this discussion.

This proposal is limited in scope, since the purpose of these amendments is specifically to provide more liquidity to Member States. Parliament and the Council have already adopted the necessary amendments for the European Regional Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the Social Fund and the Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. Now this House will vote on similar amendments to the European Fisheries Fund.

The sustained financial and economic crisis is indeed increasing the pressure on national financial resources as Member States reduce their budgets. I share the rapporteur’s concerns about this. Ensuring the smooth implementation of national operational programmes adopted under EU funds is, therefore, of particular importance. The implementation of fisheries operational programmes, in particular, injects funds into the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

We want to allow the most affected Member States – those that have received financial assistance under the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism or from the Balance of Payments mechanism – to continue to implement their European fisheries programmes on the ground and disburse funds to projects. To achieve this purpose, our proposal would allow the Commission to reimburse newly declared expenditure by an increased amount for the period in which a Member State was under these support mechanisms. This increased amount would be calculated by applying an additional 10 percentage points to the applicable cofinancing rates of each priority axis of the operational programmes.

The total financial allocation for the period from the EFF to the countries and the programmes concerned will not change; the proposal will thus not affect the overall budget. Actually, the new budget is in front of this House, and you can discuss this greater issue in the framework of this discussion.

The cooperation between Parliament, Council and the Commission on this file has been excellent, since all parties were aware of the importance of adopting the proposal as quickly as possible. I expect that a positive vote in plenary will lead to the proposal’s imminent adoption, which will enable us to come to the assistance of those Member States that most need this facilitation as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves, on behalf of the PPE Group.(PT) Mr President, welcome Commissioner. I would like to express my satisfaction at the European Commission’s proposal of establishing more favourable conditions for Member States that are in serious difficulties, or under threat of such difficulties relating to their financial stability, to really benefit from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). I second the rapporteur’s highlighting of the urgent need to adopt this proposal at first reading.

However, I believe the proposal could and should have gone a little further. I believe there are two key issues to be taken into account in this context, which should not, in fact, be separated. Firstly, that it covers all measures that facilitate the increase in the rate of execution of the EFF; secondly, that it should focus on the possibility of revising the priorities of the EFF and even reprogramming it, so as to adapt it better to the real needs of a specific time and place. This is the only way it will be possible to achieve the fundamental objective of not only increasing execution rates, but also optimising results; that is, of promoting reproductive investments and guaranteeing a genuinely positive impact on fishing communities.

In this context, I would highlight two key issues that correspond to the two aims I have just set out. The first of these is the requirement to take into consideration the fact that each community could have specific needs, to which the EFF should respond appropriately, such as modernising boats in terms of safety, hygiene and environmental best practices; in relation to this latter aspect, environmentally friendly fishing techniques and increasingly less polluting engines are particularly important. There should be provision for these actions.

It is also important to take into account the resolution recently adopted by Parliament on the multifunctionality of fisheries and their capacity for producing public goods, which draws attention to the variety of activities downstream from fishing and to the sharing of benefits throughout society that results from it. It should, therefore, be possible to apply the funds flexibly and in a variety of areas.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kriton Arsenis, on behalf of the S&D Group.(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I unreservedly support this legislation with all my heart because it really is a demonstration of solidarity. The saving of vital resources, resources worth EUR 20 million in the case of Greece, is not the only positive point; the facility to access European resources acquired by these companies is also a positive point.

Many countries have been hit by the crisis. The crisis has hit the whole of Europe and today, certain countries which are unable to give their contribution, have seen the ugly face of it. Reducing the own contribution rate will allow these countries to use these resources, resources which, in the case of Greece, total EUR 207 million; resources that could not otherwise be used.

These resources offer an opportunity to finance the Fisheries Fund’s priorities, such as sustainable development, sustainable fisheries and the development of coastal areas and support for young fishermen. That is very important at a time when the harsh face of the crisis is the face of youth unemployment, which is close to 50% in many of the countries that have been hard hit by the crisis.

This legislation clearly gets to the heart of the problem. The real message for the Mediterranean countries that will benefit from this regulation and for the other countries in the European Union is that we must seize the opportunity to apply either the Mediterranean Regulation or other regulations on fisheries, so that we can guarantee that there will be fish, so that we can guarantee that fisheries resources will be protected, so that there will be fish in the sea and the jobs we so sorely need.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(ES) Mr President, Europe’s fisheries sector is going through a tough time at the moment, and if we also refer to the fishing sector in countries with economic austerity programmes, then the situation is even more dramatic. For that reason, I would like to congratulate the Commission because through the increase in cofinance for the European Fisheries Fund programmes, we are helping different countries, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal, to have more liquidity and to continue to run the cohesion programmes that will aid their economic recovery through job creation and the growth stimulation.

The retroactive nature of the measures, from 1 January 2012, will help with that, and we hope that its application through to 31 December 2013 will be enough, because that will mean Europe is emerging from this depression.

I think that with this decision, the European institutions will be demonstrating that they are up to the task. I hope, therefore, as the rapporteur stated, that this will be approved at first reading.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, there is really not much argument on the topic of this discussion tonight in plenary; those countries that are eligible to increase cofinancing of the EFF have indeed severe budget constraints today, and we support this step to make it easier for them to implement their fisheries programmes and invest in the future.

I think that in this context, it is important – especially for those countries that have declining areas which are very dependent on fisheries – to take the opportunity offered by this amended regulation also to review and update operational programmes and adapt in order to become competitive in the future. In our opinion, the proposal for a new European maritime and fisheries fund that will replace the current European Fisheries’ Fund shows the way.

There is only one way for Member States aiming to mitigate and reduce the risk of future crises in the fisheries sector, and that is to rebuild stocks. No young person in the European Union today wants to invest their future in a business that is not sustainable but is dependent on subsidies; if there were, consumers would not accept it. Fisheries have to be ecologically sustainable in order to be economically and socially sustainable in the long term. With no fish, there can be no fishermen.

The future EMFF must be designed and implemented in order to support the objectives of the CFP, especially the sustainable exploitation of marine resources. In these times of budget restraints, it is even more important that the entire European Maritime and Fisheries Fund be geared for supporting sustainability. Public aid should be restricted to investments that are in the public interest.

Considerable amounts of money from the Structural Funds used to be awarded to building new vessels and modernising existing ones. In the new EMFF, the Commission is proposing some significant changes, including the suggestion to terminate public aid for scrapping, which is still available under the current programme.

The European Court of Auditors has criticised the scrapping aid for not having contributed to the reduction of fleet capacity. Indeed, if a ship owner knows that a handsome subsidy for leaving the fleet in the future will always be available, there is good reason to stay on and hope that the situation improves. Such aid is not consistent with the promotion of sustainable fishing.

Aid for the modernisation of fishing vessels is rarely in the public interest either, and while the idea of paying a ship owner to install a more energy-efficient engine which emits less CO2 may be seductive, it is, in reality, impossible to ensure that the fishing capacity and effort are not increased when an engine becomes more energy efficient. Significant changes to the EU fishing fleets will be needed. If they are to be achieved, public aid could help in different ways. It must, however, be limited to measures which reduce the environmental impact of the fishing operations by such means as the conversion of vessels and gear to methods which are more selective or inflict less damage to the sea floor.

Social support measures during the restructuring of the EU fleet will also be critical. So far, such social support has been directed too much towards ship owners and too little towards the crew, and this imbalance must be redressed through measures such as retraining. Only in this way will the fishing sector be sustainable in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, on behalf of the ECR Group. (PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Ferreira on his excellent work. In view of the financial situation the EU Member States find themselves in, this report is of fundamental significance for the fisheries sector. We should take this opportunity to pay particular attention to the situation of small-scale fisheries, which are most exposed to the effects of the current economic situation in Europe. The common fisheries policy currently being discussed in the Committee on Fisheries devotes a separate chapter to this area of fisheries. This is extremely important not only economically, but also culturally. Tradition, the continued existence of an occupation, the ability to pass on experience, and, most importantly, responsibility, has always been associated with this form of fishery. We should ensure that this occupation can continue to survive and create conditions encouraging the younger generations to practise this occupation, so that this generational tradition does not disappear.

The European Fisheries Fund must therefore act as a form of assistance, to support the development of the industry, and not as an instrument encouraging fishermen to give up their jobs. Member States must, with the support of the European Commission, and in the framework of the European Fisheries Fund, pursue a balanced policy not only in the context of the natural environment, but also in the context of the fishing environment. I congratulate the rapporteur, and I would like to say that we will support the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(FR) Mr President, better late than never. At last, there is a proposal to reduce the level of cofinancing required of the Member States in order for them to benefit from the European Fisheries Fund.

This principle of European Union/Member State cofinancing is a bad principle because it restricts the weakest countries, those which are feeling the full force of the austerity plans that the Union imposes on them, which boils down to nothing more than lending only to the rich.

It is a disgrace to see the European Funds not being released because the Member States concerned find it too difficult to provide the share of the financing required to unblock these funds. It is also scandalous to see that the biggest share of the fund is allocated to financing the scrapping of fishing vessels, rather than to helping the activity and to jobs in the fisheries sector.

It has to be admitted that this proposal is late in arriving as traditional fishing in the Union is dying, which, in fact, resolves nothing in relation to the necessary conservation of fisheries resources, which are threatened by the factory ships sailing under Japanese or Russian flags. It is the small-scale fishermen who are paying the price whilst the representatives of those who exploit the seas are quietly lobbying in the corridors of Brussels.

That is why, if we wish to maintain a fishing industry that sails under the flags of the Member States of the Union, the European Fisheries Fund must be urgently re-directed towards production and jobs, towards sustainable fishing, towards safety and towards research into more fuel-efficient engines. Above all, Europe needs a truly global fisheries policy for the 21st century that finally turns its back on the liberal dogma of regulation through the market.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the EFD Group.(EL) Mr President, my congratulations to Mr Ferreira on the report which he has tabled before us, containing proposals for and amendments to the regulation. May I also say that I was especially pleased to hear the views of Commissioner Damanaki.

Speedier financing and the financing facilities offered by the European Fisheries Fund will definitely help in implementing the objectives of the common fisheries policy. This proposal is very important because it has come along at a very important time. We shall soon be required to vote on the Union’s new common fisheries policy, which will set out fisheries policy for the next ten years.

Providing adequate resources and eliminating malfunctions in terms of their take-up are vital if we are to achieve the desired results and safeguard levels and the sustainable exploitation of maritime resources.

As we have heard, the take-up of resources from the Fisheries Fund is very low. I must emphasise that, in Greece in particular, small-scale and coastal fishermen make their living from fishing, meaning that it is very important that we increase resources and facilitate the allocation of resources to fishermen.

At the same time, alongside a smaller national contribution to available resources, please recommend an increase in these resources in the new budget, Commissioner, because fishermen have been hard hit, as we all know.

This report acknowledges the pressure being exerted and how the continuing credit and economic crisis is affecting the income of fishermen and fisheries policy in general. The economic and credit crisis in the Union is, of course, expressed differently in the different Member States, but the whole of Europe is affected. We therefore need to find ways to speed up payment of funds. Please make an effort along these lines and channel money where it is needed without obstacles, in order to generate economic growth and new jobs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the European Fisheries Fund exists to support fishing and coastal communities. It is important that the fund be allowed to contribute to the difficult economic conditions that many countries and communities find themselves in. However, I want simply to draw your attention tonight to my constituency of Northern Ireland. It is the only part of the United Kingdom to share a land border with another country that finds itself in a financial programme because of ongoing economic difficulties. You will then understand that many of the fishermen that I represent look at the disparity in the way some of these proposals will treat them as opposed to their colleagues, who are simply 100 miles down the road. Yet both these fleets suffer from exactly the same problems, and the coastal communities suffer in exactly the same ways: declining fleets and coastal communities that are experiencing ever greater unemployment and economic difficulty.

I think the death blow for many of the fishermen that I represent in Northern Ireland was the results of the December Council meeting, which almost certainly will see the end of the white fish fleet in Northern Ireland. You can understand how frustrated and concerned the fishermen that I represent are by the perception of disparity that they find. Frustratingly as well, they find problems not only with cofinancing and the rates at which they are allowed to cofinance, but also with the administrative burden that the European Fisheries Fund has laid upon them. The fund has been very difficult and burdensome, both for the administrator and for the applicant, and I would like to see some progress made on this front, both for the immediate future and for the longer-term, post-2014 situation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D).(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, on behalf of the Spanish socialist delegation, we can only congratulate ourselves for the initiative and support it, because we totally agree that it is necessary for those countries that are suffering a great deal more with the economic and financial crisis, and the austerity policy that is being implemented and pushed through by the Council of the European Union.

We believe that through increasing the allocation from the fund, it is possible to help these countries, so that they can not only implement the European cohesion policies, but also sustainable development of fishing and job creation in their countries. This is particularly possible as we believe that the level of adoption of the programme, which is to conclude in 2013, is 28%, that is, a figure that really shows that we are experiencing a crisis that stops those countries and us, the Spanish, from addressing the approved policies.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). – Mr President, following the savage report from the Court of Auditors, there is a need for a radical overhaul of the way in which we allocate funds in the fisheries sector. Mr Ferreira’s report seeks to overcome problems with the implementation of the current EFF due to spending constraints caused by the economic crisis. But we need to take on board the key criticisms of the Auditors before we set about creating the framework for the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

Their main complaint was centred on the overcapacity of the EU fleet. They stated that, although the alignment of fishing capacity to fishing opportunities is one of the cornerstones of the CFP and the EFF, fishing overcapacity has never been defined or quantified. The Commissioner said in a recent speech that building up healthy fish stocks in our waters is the best way to increase fishermen’s incomes. But we cannot hope to build up fish stocks unless we tackle the overcapacity of the EU fleet.

We cannot tackle overcapacity if we use taxpayers’ money to subsidise the construction of new fishing vessels or the modernisation of existing vessels or indeed, as Isabella Lövin said, the upgrading of engines, supposedly to make them more fuel efficient and to cut CO2 emissions, but probably to make them more effective at catching fish. So let us take close cognisance of what the Auditors said, make sure the EMFF is used for the best effect in future: for funding selective gear for safety on board vessels, marketing for POs and for boosting EU aquaculture.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, the proposal for a resolution does not serve the interests of small-scale and poor fishermen; on the contrary, it will speed up their demise. The common fisheries policy, the instrument of which is the European Fisheries Fund, is resulting in the disappearance of small-scale coastal fishermen by financing the destruction of small fishing craft, with painful economic and social consequences for workers and inhabitants of continental and island areas.

The concentration and profitability of large corporate groups active in fisheries and aquaculture and in processing and selling fish products is being reinforced. There is no sign of a reversal in, or an end to, chaotic overfishing and environmental destruction, even in Natura 2000 protected areas. All of this is rubberstamped by the governments of the EU Member States because the criterion of the common fisheries policy is to increase the profits of the European monopolies.

The reduction in the Member States’ contribution to the European Fisheries Fund is very unlikely to turn out for the best for small-scale fishermen because total funding from the European Union will remain the same, which will translate into a reduction in planned projects and actions and even more selective financing of them.

The only eligible projects will be those that come within the strategic objectives of the common fisheries policy and capitalist restructurings under the EU 2020 strategy and bolster the competitiveness and profitability of the European monopolies active in the fisheries sector, thereby speeding up the demise and destruction of poor, small-scale fishermen, especially small-scale coastal fishermen.

This is the capitalist growth planned by the European Union, the governments of the Member States and the plutocracy for the common fisheries policy. It will bring about poverty, impoverishment and the persecution of small-scale fishermen and an increase in profits for the European monopolies.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Mr President, the EFF has EUR 4.5 billion to spend on fishing over the period 2007 to 2013 covering scrapping of fishing vessels, aquaculture, inland fishing, sustainability and administration of the fund. But fishing managed very well before the CFP was introduced, livings were made, fish was plentiful. Since its inception in 1973, the CFP has introduced rules and regulations to control fishing. Now the EFF – why? After all, fishermen have been plying their trade for centuries without all this, and a viable industry has been passed down the generations. Fishermen are not stupid. They have looked after their stocks, just as a farmer looks after his livestock and land.

This proposal, of course, is a backdoor way of giving extra financial support to countries which have been bailed out, bailout funds under the EFSM will trigger this extra support from the EFF, and yet more taxpayers’ money goes down the drain. So this whole scheme, purporting to help fishing with more funds, is really an addition to bailouts, which are supposed to be loans by way of bond issues with time limits for repayment. Does that mean that the extra EFF money will not be included in bailout repayments? Does it mean that cash will be available without issuing bonds? If so, EFF funding will be a gift to offset a debt. What kind of finance is that?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guido Milana (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you have done very well, Commissioner, to promote this initiative and this regulation, but I would like to return to one problem – the only thing I want to pick up on in my speech – which is the under-execution of funds. The Commission must intervene because here we are facing an example of under-execution of funds. You have moved very intelligently to accelerate this process.

Mr Ferreira makes some excellent points, because there are a number of questions over this issue: I do not think that we can transform the common fisheries policy over these two years, but I think we can direct our resources appropriately, especially to the most vulnerable countries, which are in greatest need of assistance at the moment.

I would add, Commissioner, that in order to make this expenditure effective, I would also suggest that the procedures for the execution phase should be simplified; that is something I would focus on. Sometimes, a closer look at the execution of spending and simplified procedures can further assist in this process. I would like to pause for just a second if I may, Mr President, on the Court of Auditors. We must be wary of considering the Court of Auditors’ report as applicable to the whole of Europe. Within the report, there are many different areas where efficiency was different. Thank you and excuse me, Mr President, for running over time.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Mr President, Commissioner, as you know full well, I have always taken the view that the common fisheries policy was bad for the fish and bad for the fishermen. You have been the first to recognise that a lot of mistakes have been made in the past, and the trouble is that it is very difficult to overcome some of these mistakes.

My constituency, the East of England, used to have a large and vibrant fishing industry. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Earlier today, I was talking to a fisherman in my region who has been involved in fishing for some thirty years and now has one of the last seven boats in what was the great fishing port of Lowestoft. His boat is under 12 metres; in fact, 97% of the UK fishing fleet is in this category, but they have an allocation of only 4% of the total allowable catch.

Of course these fishermen do not want to see stocks decimated or wasted – they want to make a decent living. To be able to do this, they need flexibility and a better quota. Like most of our citizens, they are outraged by the discard policy. My local fisherman has to throw away more than he is allowed to land. I know you want to put a stop to discards, but we cannot wait until after 2016. There will not be any fishermen left by then.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE).(RO) Mr President, the lack of cofinancing capacity is certainly, at the moment, one of the biggest obstacles preventing the effective use of European funds, including the European Fisheries Fund. Due to the budgetary constraints it has produced, the financial crisis has made the situation even more difficult for European countries whose level of development is below the general average for the European Union. This is why the proposals from the Commission on all the categories of funds are good news for the Member States involved.

However, I should point out that there is yet another problem which remains unresolved. I am referring to the lack of resources for the private cofinancing of investments. This situation applies to all categories of European funds, especially to those intended for small enterprises and agriculture. In this regard, we need credit and public guarantee facilities to support potential beneficiaries. It is also vital to make the procedures simpler.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D).(RO) Mr President, we welcome the increase in the interim payments by 10 percentage points above the current cofinancing rate for each priority axis. Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, thereby extending the scope of the common fisheries policy to the Black Sea. These countries have accepted and fulfilled all the requirements for joining the common fisheries policy and are now eligible for support from the European Fisheries Fund.

There is no global agreement on the regional management of the Black Sea fish stocks, apart from bilateral agreements. The Commission’s support is needed to develop regional dialogue aimed at devising a common marine strategy in the Black Sea region, also involving the other states bordering the Black Sea. I think that setting up a Black Sea consultative forum is appropriate, which will provide a technical platform for communication and cooperation for the operators in the fisheries sector. If a basic sharing agreement continues to remain in abeyance, there is a risk of the resources collapsing, and the economic damage already caused to certain fisheries resources will become widespread.

 
  
 

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, I wish to repeat what I said earlier, that what the Commission is trying to do with this proposal is to deal with an emergency. This is an emergency measure. We are trying to help the Member States in real trouble due to the economic crisis, so that they can reduce the national contribution rate for Fisheries Fund programmes. This will ease the pressure on them.

Of course, it will take more than this to resolve the problem, because the take-up of European Union funds is not just a question of the national contribution. We also need suitable programmes financed in accordance with the regulation. Nonetheless, it will bring some relief and that is what we are trying to do at this very difficult juncture for certain Member States.

A number of general comments were made in the debate about the Fisheries Fund, especially about the future composition of the Fisheries Fund, based on the proposal we have made to reform fisheries policy.

I agree with many of the comments. The programmes need to be simplified because we have a very low take-up rate. We need to focus on actions that support sustainability, because there is no point in handing out European taxpayers’ money to finance a policy that does not result in healthy fish reserves. The only way to increase fishermen’s income is to have healthy fish reserves.

I agree that we need to support coastal fisheries and small-scale fishermen in particular. That is why the proposal for the new fund will include increased financing for all small vessel owners of up to 75% for every country.

Naturally, there are problems for which the national governments, not the Commission, are to blame. I wish to clarify that, because it is all too easy to say that the Commission is to blame, for example, because small-scale fishermen are disappearing and because they only receive 4% of the quotas in national allocations. We allocate the quotas by Member State and the internal allocation is then based on decisions taken by national governments.

I therefore think that all this needs to be borne in mind when the House debates the new financial regulation for the next period.

Today, we are talking about an emergency measure which, it should be noted, will not increase financing by the Member States; it will simply speed up financing. We are not therefore giving additional resources to the Member States and certain members need not worry on that count. What we are doing is to help to expedite financing, in order to help them in these difficult times.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  João Ferreira, rapporteur. (PT) Mr President, a few very short comments in the short time still remaining to me. Naturally, I should like to express my thanks for the comments and observations regarding the report. First of all, I should like to say – and you have just confirmed this, Commissioner – that this is not a demonstration or show of solidarity. This is a show of flexibility that is late arriving, unfortunately: this proposal lacks such solidarity, which would only be the case if the funding available to these Member States were increased, which is not happening. However, it was important that the Commission consider this possibility.

Moreover, this proposal – and I would highlight it again – does not guarantee full use of the funds available. The amounts of national funding required are still 15% or 40%, depending on whether the region is eligible for convergence funding or not. However, in addition to the problem of under-execution of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), to which a number of speeches referred, we are facing another problem. As well as measures to increase the take-up of funds, we need to reorient the priorities of the EFF itself. This was mentioned in a number of speeches and we entirely agree. There is a need to focus on and not forget that more than 50% of the EFF has been used to scrap boats, when what we need is to steer it towards productive activity, towards the renewal and modernisation of the fleet and support infrastructure, and towards using job creation and vocational training to bring young people back into the sector. There needs to be positive discrimination favouring coastal and artisanal fishing, so we have a certain amount of concern about the limitations placed on some of these areas by the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which needed to stimulate such productive activities.

One final word in conclusion, Mr President, regarding the amendments made by the Council and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats): we consider these amendments unnecessary and inopportune. However, we believe that, given the urgent need to adopt this proposal, we should not oppose these amendments because what is needed, in fact, is for it to be adopted as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, 14 March, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy