WRITTEN QUESTION E-0741/99

by Alessandro Danesin (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Mountain areas and the Structural Funds

Despite the scale of the resources involved, planning for the Structural Funds for 2000-2006 has not provided for specific measures for mountain areas with problems (peripheral location, difficult terrain, cost of living, environmental protection etc.) that cannot be resolved by measures under Objectives 2 and 5b, under which many areas are to be abandoned in order to channel funds to Objective 1.

SMU and crafts businesses operating in mountain areas have never enjoyed a specific support policy that recognises their particular situation and their valuable role as a source of economic development and employment in peripheral areas.

SMU in these areas are penalised from the outset, when they are set up and when they are in operation, because of the difficult environmental conditions they are forced to work in, and the greater burdens in terms of time, costs and operating restrictions they are forced to shoulder.

1. Does the Commission consider that SMU operating in mountain areas should be protected in some way;

2. Does it consider that the new planning for Structural Funds could provide an opportunity to allocate funds to help boost the SMU and crafts businesses located in mountain areas?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1999)

As regards the extent to which it has taken into account the particular characteristics of mountain areas in formulating future Community agricultural and structural policy, the Commission would point out that, although the need to simplify this policy makes it difficult to define an Objective for "mountain areas" or to allocate funds specifically to such areas, the Agenda 2000 package offers them many promising opportunities.

The general framework proposed by the Commission is well adapted both to the multipurpose role of these areas and to their diversity. The reorganisation of rural development policy, as provided for in the draft Council Regulation on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, should lead to better integration between the various existing instruments, whilst also introducing a large degree of decentralisation in their implementation.

In terms of programming, the Commission proposes maintaining Objective 1, which provides for support by means of integrated programmes for less developed regions and will probably (as is currently the case) cover a significant number of mountain areas. Outside Objective 1 regions, the new rural development policy will enable all areas to receive support under the measures in the rural development programmes. In addition, the implementation of appropriate regional programmes will make it possible to take better account of the specific characteristics of the various Community areas, which should be of particular benefit to mountain areas.

More particularly, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and crafts businesses will continue to receive processing and marketing aid and may also be eligible for aid under the measures for the adjustment and development of rural areas. This will cover a significant proportion of the areas of activity in which such firms are active and should have a particular impact in mountain areas due to the particularly acute demand for such assistance. In addition, the draft Commission guidelines on the Structural Funds programmes for the period 2000-06(1) give priority to SMEs as the vehicle for regional economic development and employment.

(1) SEC(99) 103 final.