ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/01

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 August 2001)

Subject: Cambodia

In what manner do the European Commission's relations with Cambodia contribute to ending the systematic corruption in that country and the political repression by the government, in particular as regards the intimidation of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party, several of whose activists were killed over the last few months?

What policy measures has the Commission developed to enhance the legitimacy of the local elections, scheduled to take place on 3 February 2002?

Do the audits of EU development projects in Cambodia give an indication that corruption and fraud are declining, in particular as regards the PRASAC 2 and PRASAC 3 projects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission attaches great importance, in relations between the Union and Asian countries, to addressing the need for good governance, respect for human rights and the elimination of corruption.

In all its relations with Cambodia, the Commission, together with Member States, continues to press for effective implementation of human rights and good governance. These issues are central to the Community's Cooperation Strategy with Cambodia and, in common with other donors, underpin all cooperation projects. In its ongoing bilateral contacts with the Cambodian authorities, the Commission takes every opportunity to emphasise the need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights in Cambodia and to convey any specific concerns.

On 26 July 2001, the Commission confirmed its readiness to provide support for the local elections in February 2002, since they constitute a further important step in strengthening democracy in Cambodia. The Commission will be making available technical assistance to the National Electoral Commission (NEC) and to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the exact details of which are now being finalised following an expert mission. The Commission, together with the Member States, is also currently assessing the possibility of fielding a European Union Observation Mission for the elections. In its contacts in this respect with the Cambodian authorities, the Commission has stressed the importance of a violence- and intimidation-free environment before and during the elections as well as an objective, impartial and professional attitude of the NEC in the whole process.

The audits of Union development projects in Cambodia, and in particular the Rehabilitation and Support Programme for the Agricultural Sector of Cambodia (Prasac) projects, are not intended to assess the overall situation in the country as regards corruption and fraud. Their remit is limited to determining whether the project funds have been used correctly, on the basis of effective financial management and control systems. Many of the projects do however support the application of good governance and sound and efficient management in the field in which they operate. Furthermore, the auditors have, in the case of the Prasac projects, detected no instances of fraud or corruption in their execution.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2950/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: The promotion of regional assemblies in the UK

Has the Commission provided any funds to support campaigns for new elected regional assemblies in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

As far as the programmes supported by the European Union under the Structural Funds are concerned, the financing of campaigns of the type referred to by the Honourable Member is not an eligible expenditure. The management of programmes supported by the Structural Funds is a responsibility decentralised to the designated authorities in the Member States and regions. These authorities are responsible for the selection of projects. They also carry the primary responsibility for the financial management and control of European programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2478/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: School milk subsidies

In the Community budget for 2001, 89 m was allocated to school milk. This has been cut from next year's draft budget. Does this mean that the Council no longer considers it necessary to provide this subsidy, and if it does consider the subsidy necessary, what is done to ensure that the funds are used only for school milk and not for other purposes? How are the funds distributed among the Member States? If some countries do not use the subsidy, might it be appropriate to increase the shares of those countries which do use it by the amount available to countries which decline to do so?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999(1) on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products provides for the grant of Community aid for supplying milk and certain processed milk products to pupils in educational establishments.

To that end, as the Honourable Member has pointed out, an amount of EUR 89 million intended to finance that aid in 2001 was entered in the Community budget under the heading milk products.

It would appear that for the financial year 2002 this expenditure has been transferred from the heading milk products to the heading food programme, Chapter 31, budget heading 312, and that for 2002 an amount of EUR 81 million appears under that heading(2).

Moreover, Article 15 of the aforementioned Regulation states that the detailed rules for its application, relating, in particular, to the conditions under which the aids may be granted, their amounts, the list of products concerned and the other decisions and measures are to be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 42 (Management Committee procedure).

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

(2) Smaller amount than in 2000 following the decision taken in 2000 to reduce the Community contribution from 95 % to 75 %.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2930/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Pollution from the Carling chemicals plant in Völklingen-Lauterbach

Constant pollution from the French Carling chemicals plant is endangering the health of the population of Lauterbach in Saarland, as confirmed in a report by the Saarland technical control centre commissioned by the Environment Ministry.

The following types of pollution were documented:

- odorous emissions exceeding the permitted levels for residential areas, which are harmful to health and obnoxious,

- contamination of the Lauterbach, particularly at weekends,

- noise disturbance exceeding the permitted levels (50dB/A) from the Carling power plant,

- air pollution.

Despite numerous requests, the people of Lauterbach have received no information concerning pollution from either the French firms located there or from the French authorities. Efforts by the German authorities to obtain information have been to no avail.

1. In the Commission's view, has there not been an infringement of the obligation on the French firms and authorities to provide information?

2. If so, what initiatives will the Commission take to ensure compliance with the obligation to provide information in the event of cross-border pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that from the information provided in her question it appears quite possible that the French authorities have failed to meet their obligations arising out of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment(1).

This directive, which does not impose any obligation on industrial companies that are the cause of any pollution, requires in particular that public authorities make available any information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request.

The Commission will shortly be questioning the French authorities regarding their obligations in the case raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2551/01

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: First agreement on the creation of a fishing venture between Spain and Tunisia

The signing of a first agreement to set up a joint fishing venture between Spain and Tunisia will enable around ten vessels from the Spanish town of Algeciras which have been affected by the loss of the Moroccan fishing grounds to fish in Tunisian waters and subsequently market their catch through Spanish ports.

Half of the capital of the new firms will be provided by the shipowner in Algeciras and the other half by his Tunisian counterpart. The vessels, all of them less than 20 tonnes, are to be listed in the Tunisian register and sail under the Tunisian flag but with Spanish crews.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of this type of agreement which, it appears, will soon be concluded between other shipowners in Spain and Tunisia? Can it also say whether they might be covered by the common fisheries policy in some way, and whether it can facilitate or indeed aid the extension of this form of cooperation to other countries such as Algeria, and to countries in other parts of Africa?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The Commission is not aware of arrangements or agreements that are concluded by private operators or ship-owners in the Community. Moreover, current fisheries legislation does not require these transactions to be reported to the Commission.

Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1) specifies the terms for granting Community financial support for the creation of joint ventures between Community and third country operators. Subject to those and other applicable conditions, the Commission could indeed facilitate and support the implementation of such joint ventures.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1871/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Premiums for arable crops (Denmark)

With regard to animal premiums, the European Commission is planning to introduce a ceiling for subsidised animals per holding and per age category. Would it not be sensible to introduce a similar ceiling for arable crops subsidies, for example 50 hectares, so that holdings would receive support only in respect of that maximum area?

Can the Commission indicate:

- how many agricultural holdings in Denmark have an area of more than 50 hectares;

- how many agricultural holdings in Denmark have an area of less than 50 hectares;

- if such a measure were introduced, what savings would be made expressed in absolute figures and as a percentage in the budget devoted to arable crops?

Supplementary joint answerto Written Questions E-1870/01, E-1871/01, E-1872/01, E-1873/01,E-1874/01, E-1875/01, E-1876/01, E-1877/01, E-1878/01, E-1879/01, E-1880/01, E-1881/01,E-1882/01, E-1883/01 annd E-1884/01given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

The Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) was used as a source to determine the number of holdings with an area of less than 50 hectares and of 50 hectares or more under cereals, oilseeds and protein plants (COP). Though that database is weighted by the results of the Farm Structure Survey (Eurostat), it is generally acknowledged that large holdings are over-represented. The figures given below should accordingly be regarded as upper limits. The year used is 1997, the last year for which data for all Member States are available in the FADN database.

Columns A and C of the table below give the percentages per Member State of holdings with an area under COP of, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more.

Columns B and D of the table below give the percentages per Member State of the area under COP of holdings with, respectively, less than 50 hectares and 50 hectares or more under COP.

Column F gives the percentages per Member State of the area under COP that would be excluded if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied.

Lastly, Column I gives the savings in millions of euro per Member State if, all other factors being equal, a ceiling of 50 hectares were applied. The yields used are the reference yields supplied by the Member States. The total reduction in cost to the Community would amount to EUR 4 billion.

>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: China's entry into the WTO

Since 1995 the WTO has granted countries which have negotiated accession to that body the status of developing countries in accordance with the terms agreed in the accession negotiations.

In the context of negotiations on WTO membership, the Commission recently reached an agreement on the main points of divergence surrounding China's accession to the WTO. Can the Commission say exactly what status or terms have been granted to China in the context of negotiations on accession to the WTO? Has the Commission taken account of the fact that China has some highly competitive industrial sectors and that developing country status should depend on such factors?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The World trade organization (WTO) does not grant the status of developing countries in the course of accession negotiations. The status of developing country is in fact the result of a self-declaration by the acceding country. However, while the WTO foresees special conditions for those members that have declared themselves to be developing countries, such conditions do not automatically apply to acceding candidates, whose accession terms result exclusively from the accession negotiations. China itself has accepted, in some areas, explicitly not to apply provisions foreseen in the WTO for developing Members.

Each negotiation aims therefore at determining terms of accession that are specific to that country and commensurate with its economic capacity and development. The same approach has been followed in the case of China.

Its accession terms, now almost completely defined, have therefore been negotiated by the various WTO members taking into consideration the different levels of development between the various Chinese industrial as well as agricultural and services sectors. The Commission has clearly taken into consideration in the course of the negotiations such different levels of development and insisted, where the Chinese economy is competitive, on adequate commitments.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) and Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Bi-communal projects on Cyprus

What allocation of funding towards bi-communal projects on Cyprus has been made in each financial year since an allocation was first agreed?

How much of this funding has been spent in each of these years?

How much is currently committed towards future or existing projects agreed by all relevant parties?

What bi-communal projects have been completed and what are currently being undertaken? (Please list by name and nature of project).

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Bi-communal projects are considered a main element for the reconciliation of the two Cypriot communities. Therefore the Commission supports any operations which may contribute to such an objective.

In the past and under the Mediterranean Development Assistance Programme (MEDA), the Commission signed four Financial Protocols in the framework of financial co-operation with Cyprus.

In the Second Financial Protocol 3,9 million were allocated to the Nicosia Master Plan* (rehabilitation and revitalisation of the centre of old Nicosia, especially pedestrian areas), and 2,4 million to improve the Nicosia sewerage system.

Since 2000 and the new Council Regulation on the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta (2000-2004) (Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000 of 13 March 2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta(1)), one third of each annual allocation for Cyprus is dedicated to bi-communal activities: 1/3rd of 57 million = 19 million.

Only the funds committed under the past Financial Protocols have been spent until now. The funds committed since 2000 (see below), have not been spent yet but the 2000 budget for the Nicosia Master Plan has been contracted.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Ostrich farming

On 6 June 1995 Commissioner Fischler told Parliament that a special EU committee had been asked to consider whether raising ostriches and related species in the Nordic countries constituted cruelty to animals. Mr Schweitzer had asked the Commission whether it could be right and proper to raise ostriches, which surely belonged in a dry southern climate rather than the cold North; in his view ostrich farming in the North was nothing other than cruelty to animals and should be stopped.

The problem was that ostriches did not have a special gland to oil their feathers and make them water-repellent, and therefore froze as soon as it began to rain.

Mr Fischler replied that the welfare of ostriches and the like would be scrutinised by the Standing Committee of the European Convention on the Protection of Animals. When the guidelines for the treatment of ostriches were drawn up the Committee would take full account of their biological characteristics.

What has happened on this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Standing Committee of the European Convention on the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes adopted, on 22 April 1997, a Recommendation concerning ratites (Ostriches, Emus and Rheas). The Recommendation came into force six months later.

Member States, as well as the Community, are contracting parties to the Convention and are expected to apply the Recommendation.

The Recommendation introduces specific provisions to reduce stress on animals from exposure to low temperatures, taking into account their biological characteristics. In particular, it provides that farms shall be situated only in areas where the climate and other conditions allow birds to be kept outside most of the day in all seasons and where large areas of well drained land can offer sufficient space for their exercise and grazing needs.

Furthermore, it recommends equipping enclosures where animals are kept with heating devices, and recommends to lay sand on outside areas when they are icy.

The Committee will review the Recommendation in 2002, taking into account farming experiences and new scientific evidence.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2948/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of hands-free kits for mobile telephones

Over the last few years, because of drivers' ever increasing use of mobile telephones, the use of hands-free kits has been made mandatory in almost all European Union Member States, above all on road safety grounds.

Attendant on the mandatory use of hands-free kits is the problem that, because of the rapid pace of mobile telephone development, mobile sets and hands-free kits, which are expensive, usually have to be replaced at the same time, since the latter will be virtually incompatible. That is bound to result in less self-discipline in hands-free use, less safety and more accidents brought about because of mobile telephone use.

Does the Commission therefore think that regulating this area makes sense?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission considers that the development of voluntary standards in this area makes perfect sense, but would point out that there are already hands-free kits which can be used with various mobile telephones. The Commission would also point out that basic hands-free kits are now available on the market for as little as 20. There are therefore no economic or technical reasons for not using hands-free kits. As in the case of seat belts, it seems that it will be necessary to bring home to the public the importance of using this equipment and to monitor the regulations effectively.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Human rights situation in Vietnam

Will the Commission ask the Vietnamese Government to clarify what has happened to the Catholic Priest Nguyen Van Ly who in May, after calling for greater freedom of religion in Vietnam, was arrested and seriously assaulted?

Will the Commission ask its delegation in Vietnam to visit this priest, who is apparently seriously ill, in prison and report to the Commission and Parliament on the visit?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Father Ly was arrested on 17 May 2001 and is understood to remain under arrest in a Military hospital near Hue.

The Delegation of the Commission in Hanoi, together with the diplomatic missions to Vietnam of the Member States, follows closely matters of concern in the field of human rights and participates in all actions to convey the Union's concern to the Vietnamese authorities. The Commission will continue to raise particular issues and individual cases of concern in the course of these contacts.

In regard to the case of Father Ly, attention is drawn to the remarks of the member of the Commission responsible for External Relations in the Parliament debate on religious freedom in Vietnam on 5 July 2001.