ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/97 by Angela Kokkola (PSE) to the Council (6 February 1997)

Subject: Imposition of measures by the European Union on third countries in respect of the environment

In the light of the answer given by the Commission (to my Written Question No E-2979/96) ((OJ C 105, 3.4.1997, p. 37. )) on its inability to take specific measures (such as commissioning environment impact studies) in respect of projects planned by third countries on the borders of the European Union which receive EU funding and directly affect a Member State of the European Union, will the Council say whether it intends to remedy this anomalous situation in which the Union takes measures and sets strict standards concerning the environment within its own territory, but cannot exert any influence to prevent a projects which will pollute the environment of Member States of the Union?

Answer (16 May 1997)

The Council is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

In general terms, when, on behalf of the Community, the Council concluded the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context on 15 December 1996, it decided that it would deposit the Community's instrument no later than the end of 1997. Once the Convention enters into force, it will provide safeguards as to the prevention and reduction of transboundary environmental effects arising from the action of non-Member States which are contracting parties to the Convention.

More specifically, when the Council adopted the Directive amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Council and Commission considered that whenever the Community was contemplating co-financing a project in a non-Member State, there should be an evaluation of the significant transboundary effects of that project of the environment of one or more Member States. The Commission undertook to act accordingly; the Member States undertook to follow a similar procedure whenever they co-financed projects in non-Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (21 February 1997)

Subject: Threatened approval for the demolition of St Paul's Hill near Jerusalem

The Israeli Government has initiated a procedure designed to demolish various tourist attractions on Abu Ghoneim (also known as St Paul's Hill), such as St Theodorus' Well, the ruins of St Luke's Church and the ruins of the Monastery of Marines, in order to replace them with the Jewish settlement Har Homa.

This involves demolishing what Palestinian Christians regard as a historic site.

Is the Commission prepared to urge the Israeli Government to preserve this important historic site and, hence, to review the construction of this new settlement?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (8 April 1997)

Israel's settlement activity in the occupied territories constitutes a serious violation of international law. The Commission is firmly opposed to any unilateral action which would alter the status quo of Jerusalem and thus prejudice the outcome of the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Therefore, the Commission representative and the Consuls-general of all Member States represented in Jerusalem have established a settlement watch to monitor Israeli settlement activities in the West bank and Gaza strip and all territories occupied by Israel.

The Commission is monitoring developments closely. What is particularly troubling about the settlement in question, is that it appears to be one of the final links in a chain of settlements around Jerusalem, disconnecting occupied East Jerusalem from Palestinian social life and economic activity in the rest of the West Bank. In the case of the Jabal Abu Ghoneim/Har Homa project, the closure of the only road from Bethlehem to Jerusalem - which would be a consequence of construction on the site in question - would cut off Bethlehem and its surrounding villages from Jerusalem.

Of course, the Commission would also be extremely concerned if construction were to entail the demolition of ancient Christian monuments. Equally, the deforestation of the Abu Ghoneim hill would be most regrettable in an area where woodland is scarce.

The Israeli authorities are well aware of the importance which the Union attaches to the strict respect for international law. The Commission, in full coordination with the Member States, uses every opportunity afforded by its regular contacts, to express its opposition to any existing or planned settlements in the occupied territories. The demand is repeatedly made that all settlement activities, especially in and around Jerusalem, should be halted. The position of the Union on the Jabal Abu Ghoneim/Har Homa project has been clearly expressed, notably in its statement dated 26 February 1997, as well as in the United Nations general assembly resolution adopted on 13 March 1997, which was co-sponsored by the 15 Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: The EDF and the fisheries agreement with Côte d'Ivoire

Can the Commission say what appropriations were paid to Côte d'Ivoire under the EDF in 1995 and 1996 to finance the development of the national fisheries sector, and can it list the specific products for which this aid was used?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0923/97, E-0924/97, E-0925/97, E-0926/97, E-0927/97, E-0928/97, E-0929/97, E-0930/97, E-0931/97, E-0932/97, E-0933/97 and E-0934/97 given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1997)

In reply to questions on allocations and specific projects to develop the fisheries sector in 12 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, a document listing fisheries projects in developing countries that have received EC aid has been sent to the Honourable Member and lodged with Parliament's General Secretariat.

The document comprises tables giving detailed information including the types of project, their objectives, the recipients and the Community contribution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1045/97 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (19 March 1997)

Subject: Europe Day funding

According to DG X, the Commission has a budget line for information and communication activities to be carried out by each Commission office in the Member States. For 1996, this sum was ECU 41 million for all 15 Member States.

Would the Commission please give a breakdown of how much money each Member State received? In addition, how much of the United Kingdom's allotment went for 'Europe Day' activities in 1996?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)

It is correct that in 1996 there were 41 mecu on the budget line B3-300 'general information and communication work concerning the European Union' to provide European citizens with information about Europe. The budget line covers information through the Commission in Brussels, and through its offices in the Member States. These offices are financed as to 80% by budget line B3-300, and as to 20% by budget line B3-301 'information outlets'.

A breakdown of the 26.7 mecu for the offices in 1996 shows:

- 3 mecu for each of Bonn, London, Paris and Rome

- 2.5 mecu for Madrid

- 1.3 mecu for each of Athens, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki, the Hague, Lisbon, Stockholm and Vienna

- 0.5 mecu for Luxembourg.

The London office did not commit any of its budget for 'Europe Day' activities in 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0976/97 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (17 March 1997)

Subject: EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in Belgium

Can the Commission specify how much funding Belgium received in total from the EAGGF-Guarantee Fund in 1996, giving a breakdown

per chapter (arable crops, sugar, fibre plants and silkworms, fruit and vegetables, other plant sectors or products, the vine-growing sector, tobacco, milk and milk products, beef and veal, sheepmeat and goatmeat, pigmeat, eggs and poultrymeat, other animal product aid measures, refunds on processed agricultural products, refunds in connection with EU food aid, the distribution of agricultural products to deprived persons in the Community, accompanying measures, rural development measures related to the operation of markets, other measures, income aid and the European Fisheries Guarantee Fund), and

per procedure (export refunds, compensatory pricing aid, 'area' aid, aid per head of stock, guidance premiums, private storage aid, withdrawal and similar operations, compensatory amounts, accompanying measures for reform of the CAP and public storage expenditure)?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0974/97, E-0975/97, E-0976/97, E-0977/97, E-0978/97, E-0979/97, E-0980/97, E-0981/97, E-0982/97, E-0983/97, E-0984/97, E-0985/97, E-0986/97, E-0987/97 and E-0988/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: REGIS programme

Why has the REGIS programme for the outermost regions not been extended in the way that other Community initiatives have?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)

The Regis II Community Initiative for the outermost regions of the Community has as its specific objective accelerated adjustment of the economies of these regions to improve their integration into the European internal market, by means of economic diversification, consolidation of links with the rest of the Community, stimulation of cooperation between them and with neighbouring countries, and aid for vocational training. A further aim is where appropriate to increase their capacity to cope with natural disasters.

Regis II incorporates some activities formerly covered by the Poseidom, Poseima, Poseican and Regis I programmes and also action under other Community Initiatives carried out in the outermost regions in order to enable them to participate fully in trans-national cooperation networks.

The Member States have submitted six operational programmes, all of which have been approved. They are for the Canary Islands, the Azores and Madeira, Martinique, French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Réunion.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0204/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Drainage and sewerage system in Corinth

The recent heavy flooding in Corinth has highlighted the inadequacy of the town's sewerage system which, in combination with a lack of planning and the earthing-up of river beds, has caused loss of human life and severe damage.

By Decision No 93/09/61/053 of 12 April 1994, the Commission allocated appropriations from the Cohesion Fund towards the construction of a drainage and sewerage system in Corinth (which was scheduled for completion in 1994). In the light of this, will the Commission say:

1. whether it intends to ask the Greek authorities for information and explanations regarding the technical quality and operational efficiency of the system it has jointly funded,

2. whether the project also incorporates protection against flooding in the rain water collection system, and

3. what measures it will take to ensure that the resources provided are used properly if the construction of the system proves to be faulty?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (27 February 1997)

The works to which the Honourable Member refers were indeed financed under the Cohesion Fund. They formed part of the first phase of the project and concerned the construction of five pumping stations, accounting for a total cost of ECU 1.13 million. The ancillary works were completed in August 1995.

The Commission also examined the requests submitted by the Greek authorities with a view to the financing of phase B of the project, comprising sewage disposal and water supply works for the town of Corinth. A decision has not yet been taken in this respect.

With regard to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission can provide the following information:

1. The Commission carried out an inspection and monitoring visit at the beginning of 1996. It collaborated closely with national and regional authorities, and there took place an exchange of documents and technical reports on the project's progress. The documents and reports in question deal solely with the construction of the five pumping stations, since the electrical engineering works to be undertaken at these stations are proposed for part-financing under the not yet approved phase B of the project.

2. The part of the project already financed and the requests submitted for part-financing by the Greek authorities under phase B of the project do not cover works for protection against flooding or for drainage of runoff.

3. As soon as phase B of the project is approved, the Commission will be in a position to carry out the necessary on-the-spot inspections and monitoring within the framework of the Monitoring Committee, with a view to ensuring that the project is properly implemented.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0529/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (20 February 1997)

Subject: Information policy 1997

What discussions have taken place with the other Community institutions and Member States with respect to funding European information policy in 1997?

What were the conclusions of these discussions and were any specific decisions taken with regard to information policy in the United Kingdom?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0529/97 and E-0580/97 given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1997)

The Commission is assisted in the implementation of its Community information policy by an advisory working group made up of representatives of Parliament and the Commission.

The main trends for 1997 are decentralization and direct access by the public. These are being put into practice by partnerships between the Member States, Parliament and the Commission as part of the priority information campaigns under the Prince programme entitled: 'The Euro - a Currency for Europe' and 'Building Europe Together'.

The UK has so far not wished to sign a partnership agreement.

As far as the ongoing information policy is concerned, the Commission decides on the amount to be allocated for information in each Member State at the beginning of each year, on the basis of recommendations by its Offices in the Member States. The ECU 3 million allocated to the United Kingdom in 1997 is comparable with the amounts allocated to Germany, Spain, France and Italy.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/97 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (6 March 1997)

Subject: Promoting research in the Community citrus fruits sector

The citrus fruits sector is one of the most lucrative areas of the agricultural economy in the southern flank of the Community, with large-scale production, much of which is exported to the centre and north of the European Union.

However, experts are particularly concerned that citrus fruits grown in other parts of the world are benefiting from intensive, large-scale research which has led to a noticeable improvement in production in non-EU countries. The improved quality of such production resulting from that research could eventually pose a threat to the Community citrus fruits sector.

Does the Commission therefore consider that it should promote research in the Community citrus fruits sector in order to restore and improve the quality of our products so that they are not threatened by the successes achieved in research into citrus fruit-growing in other regions of the world, in particular the American continent?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1997)

The Commission is aware of the increase in citrus fruit imports from South America and other parts of the world. Community products, citrus fruit in particular, have to compete with the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons why the Commission proposed reform of the common market organization for fruit and vegetables.

Under the reform producer organizations may set up an operational fund - 50% financed by the Community - enabling them to implement operational programmes embracing production research and improvement, product quality improvement and promotion. The Commission has recently adopted detailed rules on implementation of these measures.

As far as programmes of fundamental and applied research in agriculture are concerned, the Commission finances scientific, pilot and demonstration projects aimed at quality improvement, plant protection and environment-linked production improvement. There is however no specific sectoral strategy.

At the present time the Commission is also as part of its agricultural promotion measures putting into place specific promotion measures that include citrus fruit.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Greece

The Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.

Of this expenditure, production aid accounted for ECU 566.5 million and ECU 1547 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the total figure for expenditure on production aid for olive oil in Greece?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)

The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.

(in MECU)

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/97 by Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ELDR) to the Council (25 February 1997)

Subject: Sale of land in the European district by the Belgian state

In October 1996 the (Belgian) property management agency offered for sale a number of undeveloped properties on the chaussée d'Etterbeek. A number of sites were sold in December 1996 to a private company, including the site which a number of years ago was designated for building extra offices for the Council. It is well known that the Council has been suffering from lack of office accommodation since it took over the Justus Lipsius building.

1. Did the Belgian federal authorities give the Council Secretariat formal notice that it was putting the site on the market?

2. If so, why exactly did the Council Secretariat not inform the Member States' permanent representatives of this?

3. Finally, is the Council aware that any expansion would infringe the existing town planning regulations, as set out in the provincial development plan, since the zone in question has been designated for housing and commercial and cultural purposes?

Answer (16 June 1997)

The Belgian authorities have been informed since 1994 of the Council General Secretariat's plan to have an extension built to the Justus Lipsius building on the site in question, which, as from 1992, was set aside for that purpose on the "Plan Particulier d'Aménagement de la Ville de Bruxelles¨ (Brussels Town Development Plan).

Regarding the Honourable Member's first two questions, the Belgian Federal Government did not give the General Secretariat of the Council formal notice that it was putting the site in question on the market. However, official notice of the sale of the site was given and all the parties concerned had enough time to be apprised thereof.

With reference to the Honourable Member's final question, any extensions will be carried out in accordance with the town-planning regulations laid down by the host State.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0887/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Fisheries: EU fleet cutting plan

Why is the Commission simultaneously proposing a programme of fishing fleet cuts under the fourth multi-annual guidance programme, and an EU aid programme which will allow Spain to renew her fishing fleet with the equivalent of 1155 new fishing vessels? While this may not in the end mean any increased capacity, it surely does not accord with the aim of cutting fleets by up to 40% over six years from January 1997?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1997)

Financial aid to fisheries in Member States, including Spain, is provided within the framework of Community programmes for fisheries adopted by the Commission for the period 1994-1999. The requirement for these programmes laid down as a general principle under the reform of the structural funds adopted by the Council in July 1993.

The Spanish Community programme for fisheries includes a measure that provides financial aid for construction of fishing vessels. However, when a vessel is built, arrangements in Spain normally require that capacity greater than that of the new vessel is permanently withdrawn from the fishing fleet. This measure, therefore, promotes reduction rather than increase in fishing fleet capacity. This is clearly demonstrated by the results of the third multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet in Spain, for the period 1992-1996, when vessel construction and vessel withdrawal combined to reduce fleet capacity by 158 859 gross registered tonnage and engine power by 343 879 kilowatts.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (12 March 1997)

Subject: Vehicle standards for live animal transport

Since the 1995 Directive on Live Animal Transport calls for vehicles transporting such animals to meet certain standards by the end of 1997, when does the Commission intend to bring forward its very overdue standards with which vehicles will be expected to comply?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)

The Commission is currently preparing a draft Council decision concerning additional standards for road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding a duration of eight hours and it is hoped to present this to the Council in the near future.