ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: EU Member States

Does the Commission accept that the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands are not EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)

The Member States of the Community are the fifteen mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 227 of the EC Treaty. The relations between the Community and those territories and states cited by the Honourable Member are subject to the following special conditions:

- the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are neither part of the United Kingdom nor are they colonies. They are part of the British Crown's dominions. The EC Treaty and Community secondary legislation apply to those islands only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty of accession of the United Kingdom to the Community (Protocol No 3),

- the Vatican City is neither a Member State nor does it belong to the customs territory of the Community,

- Monaco is a principality which is integrated within the customs territory of the Community (Article 3 of Regulation 2913/92/EC ((OJ L 302, 19 October 1992.))) and is subject to certain Community secondary legislation (i.e. VAT),

- San Marino is a republic which does not belong to the customs territory of the Community. Its relations with the Community are governed by Council Decision 92/561/EC ((OJ L 359, 9.12.1992.)) and by the cooperation agreement of 16 December 1991, which awaits ratification,

- Andorra is a co-principality which does not belong to the customs territory of the Community. Relations between Andorra and the Community are governed by the trade agreement contained in Council Decision 680/90/EC ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1990.)).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1345/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (10 April 1997)

Subject: Paraguay - Paraná Waterway

1. What is the extent of Commission and EU Member State support for the building of a Paraguay-Paraná Waterway (PPW), particularly within the context of EU relations with Mercosur?

2. What are the implications of the EU- funded study into improving ports in the five countries involved in the PPW in terms of support for the construction of the PPW?

3. Does the Commission feel itself morally bound by the sustainable development criteria laid down in Agenda 21, adopted in Rio in 1992, when it comes to making decisions concerning its financial support for (mega) projects which will have a major ecological and social impact in third countries?

4. What sort of criteria does the Commission apply when deciding on financial support for large-scale projects, and specifically the PPE (socio-economic, sustainable development and ecological, criteria relating to transparency, public participation and information, the rights of local and indigenous communities, preliminary studies assessing environmental impact, economic viability and alternative possibilities, etc.)?

5. What funding for the PPW is being provided or is scheduled from the Commission and, in addition, from the Member States? What degree of coordination exists between these various channels of funding?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)

1. The Mercosur countries and Bolivia decided to carry out a project to improve the navigability of the rivers Paraguay and Paraná in order to improve the integration of the Mercosur countries' transport infrastructures and provide Bolivia with an outlet to the sea.

Following the request from these countries, the Commission is cooperating in a technical study for improving certain ports.

The Commission is not aware of any funding by Member States.

2. The study will make it possible, in an initial stage, to determine feasibility and the scale of the work to be done on the ports and to conduct an evironmental audit and analyse the economic and social impact of the improvements.

In a second stage, a civil engineering study is to be carried out in order to produce detailed technical documents for work on revamping the ports.

3. The Commission agrees with the Agenda 21 criteria.

4. The Honourable Member may refer to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-3244/95 ((OJ C 109, 15.4.1996. )) and E-3243/95 ((OJ C 161, 5.6.1996. )) from Mrs Van Putten and Written Question No 2157/95 from Mr Kreissl-Dörfler ((OJ C 66, 4.3.1996. )).

5. The Commission will finance only the technical studies. Most of the site operations will be financed, where appropriate, by specialized institutions (IDB, Fonplata, UNDP, and the EIB, etc.) and by private banks, depending on the nature of the work to be done.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/97 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: Women officials in the Commission

What percentage of D-grade staff employed by the Commission are women?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1347/97, E-1349/97, E-1350/97 and E-1351/97 given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The numbers of women in the different categories in the Commission, as at March 1997, are as follows:

>TABLE>

These figures concern only permanent officials on the operational budget and do not include officials under the research budget, or temporary and auxiliary staff.

It can be noted that the Commission has set annual objectives for female recruitment in order to increase the number of women in all levels of category A, including management posts.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1794/97 by Luigi Colajanni (PSE) to the Commission (16 May 1997)

Subject: Practical steps to safeguard the cultural and artistic heritage in the Mediterranean

The final declaration of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference of 27 and 28 November 1995 states that it is necessary to 'make concrete proposals for action, inter alia (in the field of the) cultural and creative heritage'. Parliament, in its resolution adopted on 13 March 1997 (A4-0027/97) calls on the Commission to promote a new programme designed to safeguard the Euro-Mediterranean artistic heritage and to restore, maintain and promote the archaeological and historical possessions of the Mediterranean third countries.

Could the Commission tell us in this connection:

1. what measures have been implemented, the reasons for the choices already made and what the short- and medium-term prospects are;

2. what steps have been taken to involve intergovernmental and non-governmental institutions and organizations already experienced in the area of the cultural and artistic heritage in the definition of a working method and the choice of priorities for action?

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (9 June 1997)

Cultural heritage gave rise to the first ministerial conference under the Euro-Mediterranean partnership since the Barcelona conference. A total of 27 ministers of culture from the Community and its Mediterranean partner countries met at Bologna on 21 and 22 April 1996 to discuss the conservation and enhancement of the Euro-Mediterranean cultural heritage.

The Ministers approved a declaration identifying a number of priority subjects for cooperation.

The Bologna Declaration called on the Commission to set up a mechanism for following up the conference and to put in hand projects for enhancing the cultural heritage. So, a first meeting of representatives of the 27 culture ministers and a small number of representatives of international organizations took place on 9 and 10 September 1996 with the aim of identifying and proposing regional projects which bring together as many Euro-Mediterranean partners as possible. Some 100 proposals were put forward and their practical details and objectives were discussed.

A further meeting of experts on 20 and 21 December discussed matters in greater detail; 21 regional projects of Euro-Mediterranean interest were to be prepared. The work of evaluating and finalizing requests for funds is now in progress with the aim of financing 16 projects from the MEDA programme, some of them over three years. The aim is to start practical cooperation this year.

Governmental and non-governmental organizations active in the field of cultural and artistic heritage have been associated with this process in all phases of developing cooperation. They were invited to the Bologna conference then enlisted to prepare the projects either at meetings of experts or by project coordinators.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/97 by Ludivina García Arias (PSE) to the Commission (21 April 1997)

Subject: European cooperation on behalf of women in Mozambique

Can the Commission provide details of cooperation programmes, whether its own, via NGOs or within the framework of the EDF, which have been, are being, or may be carried out in Mozambique with a view to improving the situation of women or preventing the sexual exploitation of girls and young women?

Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1997)

The Commission finances many projects which seek to improve the condition of the population of Mozambique. A number have particular incidence on women. However it does not finance specific womens' projects in Mozambique in keeping with its policy of increasingly integrating gender issues throughout its cooperation programme.

The Commission does not finance any projects which aim exclusively at avoiding sexual exploitation of girls, although some social or health projects (such as for street children and to counter sexually transmissable diseases) would incorporate elements which might assist in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Italy

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, storage measures had a negative value in 1995, standing at ECU * 94.9 million.

What is the total figure for expenditure on storage measures in respect of olive oil in Italy?

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-0106/97 by James Nicholson (I-EDN) to the Commission (29 January 1997)

Subject: Genetic manipulation of soya beans

1. What action does the Commission propose to ensure that food products containing genetically manipulated soya can be identified by consumers?

2. What research evidence has been considered regarding potential harmful effects of addition of genetically manipulated soya to the food chain?

3. What range of foodstuffs is known to contain this form of soya?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)

1. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the Council concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )) was adopted on 27 January 1997 and will enter into force on 15 May 1997. Products covered by the scope of the Regulation and corresponding to one of the four categories of Article 8 will be subject to the labelling provisions of the Regulation.

According to the provisions of the Regulation, detailed rules for the implementation of the labelling requirements shall be adopted by the Commission assisted by a standing committee consisting of representatives of the Member States. The Commission has already initiated this procedure and will make all efforts to finalise it before the Regulation comes into force. The Commission also intends to present a proposal in the context of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer ((OJ L 33, 8.2.1979. )), which will result in the application to the soya beans the same labelling requirements as those foreseen by Regulation No 258/97. Furthermore, notifiers of genetically modified products covered by Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) were invited by the Commission to voluntarily label their products.

2. The review of the risk assessment foreseen in Directive 90/220/EEC for the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms is carried out on a decentralized basis by the competent authorities of the Member States. This risk assessment takes into account all existing relevant scientific information available, in particular with regard to the specific aspect of potential harmful effects of the addition of genetically modified soya to the food chain.

3. The Commission has no information on a limitation of the use of genetically modified soya beans only in specific parts of food processing. In principle, if the product complies with the requirements of all relevant regulations it can be used and processed like any other variety of soya beans. Accordingly the Commission encloses a soya bean utilization chart which gives general information on the range of products that utilize soya beans.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/97 by Michael Elliott (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: EU funding for reproductive health care programmes in 1996

What was the total funding committed in 1996 for reproductive health care programmes in developing countries?

Can the Commission provide a comprehensive list of all EU-funded reproductive health programmes in developing countries in 1996 (administered by DG IB and DG VIII): by budget line, recipient, country and amount of funding?

Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)

The estimated total funding committed in 1996 by the Commission for specific reproductive health care programmes in developing countries was 158 MECU. Substantial support (143 MECU) was provided for population and reproductive health programmes in the Mediterranean, Asia and Latin America.

An important contribution to better reproductive health was also provided through support to sexually transmissible disease (STD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) programmes in developing countries. In this context a total of 15 MECU has been committed in 1996 under the specific AIDS budget line to support intervention at international, regional and national levels in developing countries. An additional 0.3 MECU was also committed for support to mother and child health projects in developing countries under the mother and child health budget line (which was merged in 1997 with the population budget line).

In addition to these amounts, European development fund (EDF) funds have been committed to assist African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries both in the field of STD/HIV/AIDS and in health sector support which includes the integration of family planning components in basic health services at primary level.

Total amounts committed in 1996 for support to the health sector with priority to primary health care represent 83.6 MECU in terms of projects and 38 MECU in terms of budgetary support through the counterpart funds of the structural adjustement facility. It is impossible to isolate precisely the percentage of these amounts that directly relate to population and reproductive health.

The table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat provides an overview of specific Community-funded reproductive health programmes in developing countries by budget line, recipient, country and amount of funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)

Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Portugal

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, refunds on olive oil accounted for ECU 38.2 million and ECU 40 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

What is the total figure for expenditure in respect of refunds on olive oil in Portugal?

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-1067/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)

Subject: Rice imports from overseas countries and territories

The volume of EU rice imports from the ACP countries, which have transited duty-free and without any quantitative restrictions through Overseas Countries and Territories rose from 58 000 tonnes in 1992 to 365 000 in 1996, thereby causing considerable disruption of the Community market. The Commission has adopted safeguard provisions, which were then approved by the Council but are, by nature, transitional measures.

Does the Commission consider these import arrangements to be compatible with the CAP principle, which guarantee Community preference for agricultural products?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1067/97 and E-1069/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1997)

The Commission believes that the current import arrangements for products originating in the overseas countries and territories (OCT) should be adjusted to ensure a balance between the development objectives of the OCT and the objectives of the common agricultural policy.

To this end, it has adopted and forwarded to the Council two draft amendments to the Decision on the association of the OCT with the Community ((Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25.7.1991. )), the first in the context of the report on the implementation of the OCT/Community trade arrangements provided for in the Decision ((COM (93) 555 final. )), and the second in the context of the mid-term review of the Decision ((COM (95) 739 final. )). However, the Council has not yet been able to achieve the unanimous approval needed for the adoption of these proposals.

The Commission considers that work within the Council should continue in order to find a satisfactory solution to the problem as soon as possible. It regrets that in January 1997, in the absence of such a solution, it was necessary to resort for the second time (the first time was in 1993) to safeguard measures to restrict imports of rice originating in the OCT ((Commission Regulation (EC) No 21/97 of 8 January 1997 - OJ L 5, 9.1.1997 and Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 - OJ L 51, 21.2.1997. )).

Since these measures expired at the end of April 1997, it is planned to assess the situation before that date in order to determine if they should be extended or amended.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1270/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)

Subject: Rome City Council's project to build a subway under the Castel Sant'Angelo and Directive 97/11/EC

Some time ago Rome City Council launched a project, in the context of the public works to be carried out for the Jubilee in the year 2000, for an underground passage approximately 1 kilometre long beside the Tiber, near St. Peter's Square, called the 'Castel Sant'Angelo subway'. Although it was vigorously opposed by a number of grass-roots committees and various environmental organizations, the project was approved, after a number of modifications were made to the original version, by the Higher Council for Public Works. The subway is to be built on land which has complex hydrogeological characteristics and contains a significant quantity of archaeological remains, including the ancient walls of the mausoleum of the Emperor Hadrian, on the foundations of which the more recent Castel Sant'Angelo was built.

It would seem that Rome City Council has not yet carried out an environmental impact assessment of this project under the terms laid down in European legislation, in particular in Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) and Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. )), the second of which explicitly states in Annex III that the location of a structure in wetlands and areas of historical, cultural or archaeological importance is a fundamental and essential factor in the environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, the section of the general public directly concerned by the construction in question was not consulted.

Can the Commission ascertain whether Rome City Council has complied with European legislation on public contracts as regards the project for the Castel Sant'Angelo subway? Can it ascertain whether Rome City Council and the Italian Ministry of Public Works have contravened Community legislation on the environmental impact assessment of public and private projects, in particular Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC? Finally, can the Commission give its opinion on the whole issue?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1997)

The Commission is not at the moment aware of any infringements of Community regulations as regards public contracts for the project to build a subway under Castel Sant'Angelo.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers comes under the projects listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC. For these projects, the environmental impact assessment procedure is not automatic, but it must be carried out if the project has a major environmental impact because of its characteristics, size or location.

Furthermore, all categories of project provided for in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC must be evaluated to establish whether it is necessary to carry out the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in that Directive.

In the light of the facts to which the Honourable Member has drawn attention and earlier considerations, the Commission will be contacting the Italian authorities.