8 Financial assistance for aquaculture
| (25025)
14463/03
COM(03) 658
| Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.
|
| Legal base | Articles 36 and 37 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 5 November 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 14 November 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 30 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council | Early in 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 In September 2002, a Commission Communication[14]
set out a strategy for the sustainable development of European
aquaculture over the next ten years. It identified the main challenges
facing that sector as being the preservation of economic viability,
concerns over food safety and animal health and welfare, and the
environmental impact of aquaculture, and it suggested a number
of steps which could be taken in each of these areas. The rules
governing Community structural support for fisheries, through
the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and more
generally, are set out in Council Regulation 2791/1999,[15]
and, in this proposal, the Commission has set out the changes
which it suggests should be made to that Regulation in order to
reflect the new strategy for aquaculture.
The current document
8.2 The key elements of the proposal are as follows:
- measures to encourage capital investment in facilities for
the protection and development of aquatic resources in inland
as well as marine waters, with particular reference to the rehabilitation
of spawning areas;
- provision for reliable statistics and economic
analysis on production and marketing, in order to better inform
proposals for the development of aquaculture;
- financial compensation to shellfish farmers where
contamination due to toxic algae makes it necessary for the protection
of human health to suspend harvesting for more than six consecutive
months: throughout the life of Regulation 2792/1999 (to the end
of 2006), only one application can be made in respect of any particular
fishery (with compensation not exceeding the income loss sustained
over six months), and such compensation (including any which Member
States may grant under the FIFG for the temporary cessation of
other fisheries-related activities) may not exceed either €1
million or 4% of the funds allocated by the Community to the fisheries
sector as a whole in the Member State concerned for the period
2000-2006, whichever is the higher; recurrent seasonal suspensions
would not be eligible for compensation.
- provision for small-scale applied research, carried
out by an appropriate body and not exceeding €150,000 over
three years, to be eligible as a pilot project if it contributes
to aquaculture development;
- amendment of the section on aquaculture in the
Annex to Regulation 2792/1999 which sets out special conditions
and criteria for assistance so as to:
— provide
definitions for "extensive fish farming" and "intensive
fish farming";
— allow initial costs incurred by aquaculture
businesses in joining eco-management and audit schemes (EMAS)
to be eligible for assistance, as well as investments in works
relating to water circulation in aquaculture and service vessels;
— make it clear that fishing vessels (defined
as any vessel equipped for commercial exploitation of living aquatic
resources) will not be considered as service vessels, even when
used exclusively in aquaculture; and
— list priority areas of assistance for
aquaculture as measures to: reduce environmental impacts; improve
mollusc farming; modernise existing enterprises; or benefit aquaculture
through assistance for finding or promoting new markets and improving
business operations.
- reduce the minimum rates of
contribution from private beneficiaries for investments in extensive
fish farming practices beneficial to the environment from 40%
to 30% of eligible expenditure in Objective 1 regions and from
60% to 50% in other areas; however, for the construction of new
intensive fish farms not falling within the list of priority areas
of assistance for aquaculture referred to in the above sub-paragraph,
the existing minimum rates would be increased to at least 60%
in Objective 1 regions, and to at least 80% in other areas.
The Government's view
8.3 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 30 November
2003, the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw)
says that the Regulation 2792/1999 enables grant aid to be provided
on a wide range of measures, and that Member States have the flexibility
to decide which of those will be grant-aided under national schemes.
He points out that the total funding allocated to the UK under
the FIFG for the period 2000 to 2006 is limited to €220
million, and that, whilst the UK supports in principle the development
of environmentally sustainable aquaculture, there may be other
competing priorities for the existing funding allocation.
8.4 The Minister adds that other Member States have
previously argued for an increase in Community funds for aquaculture
and, in particular, for financial compensation to shellfish farmers
who have had to suspend harvesting due to toxic algae contamination
affecting human health, and that the UK (together with the Commission,
and some other Member States) can be expected to resist such pressure
strongly. He also suggests that it may be a more appropriate
use of available resources to fund research into the causes of
toxic algae contamination in the interests of all those affected
by such contamination in fisheries and harvesting areas.
Conclusion
8.5 Given the various measures envisaged in the
Community's strategy on aquaculture, it seems logical to make
the necessary consequential amendments to the Regulation setting
out the rules governing structural assistance to the fisheries
sector, though we note that there will be no additional financial
provision, and that any such aquaculture measures would have to
compete for the funds available. Having said that, we do not
consider that the proposal raises any issues requiring further
consideration by the House, and we are therefore clearing it.
14 (23818) 12137/02; see HC 152-xl (2001-02), paragraph
12 (30 October 2002). Back
15
OJ No. L.337, 30.12.99, p.1. Back
|
