ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1140/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: ERDF Article 10/Azores

In view of the specific nature of Portugal's Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), would the Commission give details of the amount of Community support received by the region under Article 10 of the ERDF during the 1994-1999 period? What does the Commission envisage as regards support during the 2000-2006 financial period?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 1998)

During the current funding period 1994-1999 the Azores region has not participated in the projects approved under Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2083/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 2052/89 as regards the European regional development fund(1).

For the next funding period 2000-2006 it is envisaged that support for innovative measures and pilot projects will continue. Under the Commission's proposals(2), up to 0.7 % of the structural funds would be allocated to this activity. It is not possible to say how much might go to any given region.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2) COM(98) 131 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2009/98

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Situation in the north of Mali

What are the Commission's development projects for the north of Mali and what progress has been made to date?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Community is still the main development partner in northern Mali.

Current operations in the region under the 7th EDF National Indicative Programme total ECU 22 million. They cover economic regeneration and the conservation of natural and productive resources (project to combat sand encroachment, development programme for livestock regions, support for the "Crédit Initiative") and the rehabilitation of social facilities (primary schools and health training) and economic infrastructure. The programme of microprojects works on the fringes of specific projects to help achieve these objectives. Institutional support is being given in the form of budget support to the northern administration (via the counterpart funds from the structural adjustment support programme) and technical assistance with coordinating aid to northern regions (team based in Gao).

A new ECU 1,85 million financing decision for a programme of institutional support to coordinate development operations in the north of the country is in the pipeline. It should help increase the planning and coordination capabilities of the relevant authorities and harmonise the operational approaches of the various bodies working in the region.

At the end of 1996, the Commission took a decision to approve budget funding (from the "food security and food aid" heading) to help ensure a lasting peace and to assist with post-conflict rebuilding through a number of food security support schemes. The decision, worth ECU 2 million over 18 months, aims to assist with the resettlement of communities who were left destitute, displaced or refugeed by the fighting. Taking an approach designed to equip various sites in turn (repair of stand pumps, reintroduction of productive activities such as stock breeding and market gardening), these schemes are being carried out by NGOs already working in the region.

Again in northern Mali, the Commission is carrying out operations totalling some ECU 7 million (1996 to mid-1998) in three priority areas: health, water and food. An extra ECU 5 million should ensure that these activities can continue from July 1998 onwards.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1627/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 1998)

Subject: Fifth framework programme for RTDD (budget for implementation)

With regard to the amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) and to the amended proposal for a Council Decision concerning the Fifth framework programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for research and training activities (1998-2002) (COM(97) 439 final - 97/0119 COD - 97/0120 CNS)(1).

Can the Commission ensure close interaction between the framework programme and non-Community European cooperation programmes, especially Eureka and COST, and can it draw up, on the basis of analyses of specific geographical areas, a measure subdivided into the following areas: the CEEC countries, the Mediterranean Basin, the NIS countries, Asian and Latin American countries with dynamic economies, the developing countries and industrialized non-member countries?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 1998)

The policy and instruments for co-operation with other frameworks of research and technological development (RTD) co-operation and with third countries are detailed in the proposal for the specific programme "Confirming the international role of Community research"(2). A major area within theme C of this programme is co-ordination with COST and Eureka in order better to exploit the complementarity between these respective instruments and the framework programme. Therefore, the Commission can answer the first part of the Honourable Member's question in the affirmative.

As for the second part of the question, the Commission is proposing the following structure for co-operation with certain categories of third countries in theme A of the specific programme cited above:

- states in the pre-accession phase

- New Independent States (NIS) and Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) not in the pre-accession phase

- Mediterranean partner countries

- research for development (targeting the developing countries)

- emerging economy and industrialised countries

This structure has been defined on the basis of the experience acquired during the current framework programme, developments concerning the relations of the Community towards certain groups of third countries, as well as on the basis of RTD policy dialogue with authorities of third countries and studies targeting some specific countries. It is coherent with the structure presented in the question (the emerging economy countries mentioned above are located in Asia and Latin America), the sole divergence being that in view of different objectives and instruments, the Commission proposal distinguishes between countries which are in the pre-accession phase (Cyprus and 10 CEECs) and the CEECs which are not, but are grouped together with the NIS.

(1) OJ C 291, 25.9.1997, p. 15-16.

(2) COM(98) 305 final.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1714/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Regional protection

With reference to the recent human and environmental disaster in Campania and to my previous Written Questions E-2480/94(1), E-2730/95(2) and E-2731/95(3) and the answers to them and in view of the need to coordinate regional planning policies throughout the EU, since many problems are shared by Member States and in some cases are transnational, does the Commission not agree that there is an urgent need to:

1. Request the Environment Agency to draw up hydrogeological surveys of EU territory to identify the areas most at risk?

2. Issue proposals, given the restricted powers it currently enjoys, for the Member States to grant it the prerogatives needed to coordinate at least the regional planning programmes linked to regional development projects?

3. Immediately insert an amount in the preliminary budget for 1999 to be used for this purpose?

4. Coordinate the various civil protection bodies, with policies for cooperation to be drawn up under the "Third Pillar"?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 1998)

1. The European environment agency is largely a data and information gathering body on the state of the environment. The proposed task would go beyond its current remit, competence and resourcing.

2. and 3. The Member States and the Commission are currently involved in preparing a strategic forward-looking document entitled "Outline for the development of Community space" (SDEC) whose aim, in particular, is to develop an integrated view of Europe. That outline, a first draft of which was introduced in June 1997 under the Dutch Presidency contains, in particular, a certain number of political proposals of which certain concern land use, water management and, more generally, the taking into account of natural hazards.

It should however be stressed that this - illustrative - outline insists that existing powers be maintained with regard to land use whether at national or regional level, while recommending that these be better incorporated and that cooperation should be expanded.

4. Cooperation on civil defence falls within the Community remit, as confirmed by Article 3.t of the EC Treaty. Cooperation on civil defence is thus organised under the first pillar within the Treaty.

Against this backdrop the Council adopted, on 19 December 1997, the Community action programme on civil defence(4). One of the projects under that programme is to define the guidelines for preventing disasters. Those guidelines could be followed by all of the Member States in order, as effectively as possible, to prevent the hazards arising, in particular, in mountainous areas such as Campania.

(1) OJ C 81, 3.4.1995, p. 37.

(2) OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 18.

(3) OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 18.

(4) Council Decision 98/22/EC of 19 December 1997. OJ L 8, 14.1.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2191/98

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(10 July 1998)

Subject: Death of Monsenor Jose Juan Gerardi

Is the Commission aware of the tragic death of Monsenor Gerardi, Director of the Guatemalan Archbishopric's Human Rights Office in Guatemala City on 26 April this year? Will the Commission do all it can to ensure that the death is thoroughly investigated and those responsible are brought to justice?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

As it pointed out at the 14 May plenary in Strasbourg, the Commission was saddened to learn of the brutal murder of Monseñor Gerardi. This tragedy has obviously been a setback to the peace process, still fragile some eighteen months after the signing of the agreements for a firm and lasting peace. The fragility of the process is due mainly to its slow progress, the difficult obstacles in its way and the low level of involvement of the various sections of the population.

The Commission will do everything in its power to ensure, in line with the peace agreements, that the shortcomings in the operation of the rule of law (especially the security forces and the judicial system) are overcome. This would enable the government to fulfil its declared desire to identify and bring to trial those responsible for the crime and to establish the kind of environment needed for peaceful coexistence.

In the meantime, the Commission is closely following the police and judicial investigation and the work of the High-Level Commission (which includes the Foreign Minister, the Interior Minister, the Chief Prosecutor, the Private Secretary to the President and the Human Rights Prosecutor). One of the main reasons for the setting-up of the High-Level Commission was to ease communication with the international public over the crime and its perpetrators.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/98

by Mirja Ryynänen (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: EU aid to develop Finnish sheep-farming

In autumn 1997 Finland drew up a plan for the development of its currently very small-scale sheep-farming sector. Its aim is to raise the quantity produced so as to improve the efficiency and quality of breeding. The structural development involved requires new investment.

One problem with developing the sheep-farming sector is the small size of ewe premiums. Finland asked the EU to support the payment of larger premiums. However, the EU has as yet been reluctant to commit itself on the matter. In Finland a higher ewe premium is regarded as essential for the development of the whole sector.

What is the Commission doing to enable Finnish sheep-farmers be paid a ewe premium which will help the development of the existing small-scale sheep-rearing industry?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the problems facing the Finnish sheep sector. The problems are essentially structural in nature and as a result Finland is putting into place certain programmes with the agreement of the Commission which aim to improve structures in the sector as well as the quality of carcases.

The Commission rejected a request from Finland for the payment of a supplementary premium to its producers because this would lead to the reopening of an unwelcome debate that the calculation of the premium should be made on a regional basis.

The existing annual premium payable within the framework of the sheep and goatmeat regime compensates producers according to the level of the average Community price. Rather than allowing the development of a dependency on such payments the Commission takes the view that the best incentive for producers to improve quality and to invest in structural improvements is the resultant increase in prices and growth in market opportunities. The Commission does not therefore envisage making any proposal for an additional premium to be paid to Finnish sheep farmers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1567/98 by Andrea MANZELLA to the Council. Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi



Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0044



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1567/98 by Andrea Manzella (PSE) to the Council (25 May 1998) Subject: Assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi With reference to the assassination of Bishop Juan Gerardi, would the Council state what urgent measures it considers the European Union should take to urge the Government of Guatemala to conduct an efficient and searching investigation to identify both those who carried out the crime and those who commissioned it for political reasons,as the bishop's murder confronts Guatemala with the terrible prospect of a return to civil war?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Support for the creation of an energy agency in the Algarve region

In the context of the project for creating an energy agency in the Algarve region, and given the existence in the past of operational obstacles to the realization of this project, can the Commission explain what possibilities exist for supporting this initiative in the Algarve?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 1998)

In the context of the action to set up regional and urban energy agencies under the SAVE II programme, the Commission received a proposal to set up an agency in the Algarve. The proposal was put forward jointly with the Spanish Province of Huelva. All the proposals sent in were evaluated in accordance with the SAVE II Committee's procedures, ensuring maximum transparency and discipline. Unfortunately, this particular project did not make it onto the list of energy agencies to receive funding in 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1798/98

by Jessica Larive (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Safety of cigarette lighters

European Union safety regulations include European standard EN ISO 9994-1996 standard on safety aspects of cigarette lighters - and the general product-safety Directive. Both measures are aimed at ensuring that lighters are safe for use by consumers. The ISO is a voluntary standard which the industry undertakes to uphold on the basis of self-regulation. In the United States, over and above the ISO standard, a compulsory safety standard has been in force since 12 July 1994 which requires lighters manufactured in or imported into the US to be child-proof. Despite these measures, accidents continue to be caused in the European Union by cigarette-lighter explosions or by fires started after children have played with cigarette lighters. The relevant Europe standard is at present undergoing review. That task was recently entrusted to the European Standards Institute (ESI).

1. Does the Commission consider that improved measures should be adopted in the light of this review to prevent children from being able to play with cigarette lighters? If so, what are they?

2. Does the Commission consider that maximum flame heights should be limited?

3. Does the Commission consider that so-called "heat-column" lighters should be covered by this procedure and be investigated further?

4. Does the Commission think that it should try to ensure that Member States do more to bring about compliance with the Europe standard in this connection? If so how? If not, why not?

5. Would there be scope, in the consumer interest, for a more binding Commission measure if it became apparent that compliance with the standard was less than complete and Member States were not fully monitoring their own industries?

6. Does the Commission consider that a compulsory safety standard, following the example set by United States, would also be the most effective means of preventing accidents with cigarette lighters within the European Union?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Horse medication and welfare

Is the Commission aware that under legislation banning the use of certain medicines widely used to treat horses which comes into effect in January 2000, horses used solely for sports and leisure purposes will be subject to exactly the same regulations as horses bred for food purposes?

Has the Commission considered that no alternative medicine is available for certain afflictions common in horses used for sport and leisure and that the implementation of the new legislation could pose a significant threat to the welfare of these animals?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no E-1495/98 by Mr Kindermann(1).

(1) See page 42.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2761/98

by Xaver Mayer (PPE) to the Commission

(3 September 1998)

Subject: Breeding game on farms

Breeding game has become a major commercial activity in EU agriculture. It often enables land to be used where there is no alternative use for it. Against a background of different production processes in the EU and the Community's low level of self-sufficiency, farmers who breed game face serious problems due primarily to cheap imports from non-EU countries and also to the fact that the authorization and veterinary legislation is not harmonized.

The Commission is requested to answer the following questions:

1. Does the Commission believe that adequate account is taken of the protection of animals in the legislation on the breeding of game on farms in Europe? Is it aware of differences among the various Member States that distort competition? Is it necessary, in the Commission's view, to require imports from third countries to satisfy certain production and breeding conditions?

2. Does the Commission believe that the designation "meat of game bred on farms" should be dependent on the satisfaction of certain breeding and production conditions so that a distinction is made between such products and the meat of agricultural livestock?

3. Does the Commission believe that the use of genetic engineering, artificial insemination, embryo transfer, the keeping of animals in sheds and the amputation of antlers should be prohibited in the breeding of game on farms throughout Europe and in the case of imports from third countries?

4. Does the Commission believe that imported meat of game bred on farms in third countries should be subject to the tariff on the meat of agricultural livestock rather than the tariff on game?

5. Is the Commission aware that John's disease has occurred in stocks of game in New Zealand, Australia and other overseas countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1715/98

by Antonio Tajani (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Infringement proceedings brought by the European Union against Italy concerning the sale of the Rome Milk Centre

Has the Commission received any new information from the Italian State and the Rome City Council concerning the sale of the Rome Milk Centre, which is the subject of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Union?

What further representations does the Commission intend to make to the Rome City Council?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

The Commission has not received any new official information from Italy or from the city of Rome on the sale of the Centrale del Latte di Roma. It should be noted, however, that the Commission decision initiating the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty as regards the aid for Centrale del Latte di Roma gave the Member State until 8 June 1998 to submit its comments.

The Commission still awaits these comments on the decision, and also those of interested third parties and other Member States. Once they are received and considered, the Commission will take a final decision on the aid in question in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/98

by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission

(11 June 1998)

Subject: Financing of Spain's water supply scheme from Community funds

The (written) answer to my Oral Question H-0466/98(1) at least represents a step forward by comparison with the Commission's previous replies, since it now recognizes the existence of a Spanish "National Water Supply Scheme" financed by the ERDF, albeit only in part. However, the Commission answer restricts the scope of this approach to the truth by going on to conceal the fact that ERDF funding in Alqueva amounts to only ECU 96.6 million and not ECU 300 million. This amalgamation of ERDF funding with other Community funding in the Alentejo region clearly makes it more difficult to compare ERDF funding for water supply projects in Portugal and in Spain.

Given that, as part of the Spanish National Water Supply Scheme, the Commission intends to invest 13 times more through the ERDF than the amount which the ERDF is investing in Alqueva, and without questioning the volume of funding but merely the different conditions applied to funding in the two countries.

I should like once again to put the following questions:

1. Does the Commission believe that it used balanced and impartial methods of analysing the conditions for investment in the above two Member States?

2. Did it investigate the environmental impact of work linked to Spain's National Water Supply Scheme in the Guadiana basin in particular? What preventive measures did it take?

3. Can it provide a list of major projects involving diversions and dams financed under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund in the Guadiana basin, together with the respective budget?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1447/98(2).

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (May 1998).

(2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.