Agroaldea
stowage tomatoes
The regulator calls for a detailed assessment of the aid without questioning its existence, but its amount.
Once again, from the metropolis, he turns to question the use and the amount of compensation to transport whose purpose is to match the peninsular canaries producers.
While 2010, was the Ministry of Public Works himself who accused the exporters of tomato and cucumber Canary fraud, fact that the Supreme Court denied last February, this time is the National Commission Markets and Competition (CNMC) It is requesting an assessment of the amount of this compensation.
It is noteworthy that this organization has not acted on repeated breaches of the State, in 2009 and 2011, by Decrees pledged up this compensation 70%, far from 50% actual.
On the other hand, Nor was pronounced when the CNMC 2011 this compensation suffered a cut that left the 26%, and in subsequent years did not pass the 38%, with consequent loss of competitiveness of canaries producers.
However, the report considers CNMC “key” that values the “efecto encourager” subsidies sea and air freight originating or destination Canary calls for the development and evaluation work.
To improve efficiency and minimize possible damage on competition, given the continued and permanent nature of the aid, CNMC believes that the ultimate goal of the measure and its proper design should be assessed as well as the degree of success of the aid and any undesirable impacts.
It is at least grotesque and outrageous that, against arbitrary action, abusive and unlawful because he has violated the Law, CNMC is dispatched with this request and not request an investigation to clarify what and who are directly responsible for irreparable damage that has been inflicted on the producers of the Canary Islands.
CNMC also silent about the abuse which is the spirit of this compensation the establishment of such costs incurred opaquely, by the public company INECO that, citing the Data Protection Act, denies display data that are based for the calculation of these costs.
Perhaps here the CNMC should request, before assessing compensation, the obligation to comply with the Transparency Act this public company since, in the case of exporters of tomatoes, the estimated cost type is made on dry transport, when the goods travel with refrigerated since offered this possibility nautical transport system.
However, the Commission considers “fundamental” the correct estimate of the additional costs actually involve transportation to or from Canary Islands. To do this, It stresses that they must choose properly the headings of eligible costs, reference to the costs of an efficiently run company and, In addition, adjust the type costs to market developments.
“Competitive procedures could be used for obtaining study costing type, instead it reiterated the resource management entrustment own medium as a public company INECO”, the report said.
CNMC publishes its report on the Draft Ministerial Orders that determine the year 2015 type eligible costs and makes recommendations from the point of view of promoting competition and efficient economic regulation.
In your opinion, the existence of “worthy protective factors” they can not hide “possible improvements” as regards the efficiency of the aid, minimizing any distortions of competition.
CNMC emphasizes that it has made recommendations in recent years that have not been welcomed mostly by the Ministry proposed the rule and that, Therefore, again recalls the.
The Commission notes that to serve the insular fact aid is granted to maritime and air transport of goods to or from the islands and that such compensation constitutes State aid, which they have been notified to the European Commission and declared compatible with Community law.
Are welcome audits and controls of public funds, but that is not always made by the narrowest part, especially when the conduct to date has managed to eliminate any competition on the side of the Canary Islands.