WRITTEN QUESTION No. 467/96 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Inclusion of the Atlantic seaboard in the development of short sea shipping in Europe
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: less-favoured region, peripheral region, project evaluation, regional development













EUR-Lex - 91996E0467 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0467

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 467/96 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Inclusion of the Atlantic seaboard in the development of short sea shipping in Europe  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0048 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/96 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Inclusion of the Atlantic seaboard in the development of short sea shipping in EuropeIn its communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the development of short sea shipping in Europe (COM(95)0317 final of 5 July 1995), the Commission failed to include in its conclusions the studies carried out into this subject by the regions of the Atlantic seaboard, which it did not take into account when drawing up the communication, as the Committee of the Regions pointed out in its report No. 33/96 of 18 February 1996 (paragraph 10). The Commission did, however, take account of the studies relating to the North Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean, these being areas for which the Commission has set up 'working groups', together with a working group for the Black Sea, for the development of short sea shipping with a view to enlargement.Bearing in mind that the Atlantic seaboard includes 5 peripheral maritime Member States (3 of which are among the 4 cohesion countries) and many Objective 1 regions, can the Commission explain the reasons for such an omission? Does it not agree that the economic and social cohesion of the current European Union requires that the communication address the specific problems of the Atlantic seaboard?Is the Commission therefore prepared to set up an Atlantic working group to tackle the specific issue of this important peripheral shipping area currently in decline?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 March 1996)The Commission feels it is not correct to state that the analysis of the position of short sea shipping carried out in the context of the Atlantic arc has not been taken into account in its communication. The Commission is aware of the work of the Atlantic arc in this area and has followed it with interest. Indeed, one of the studies carried out within the framework of the Atlantic arc's Atlantis programme is explicitly quoted in the communication. The analysis contained in the communication has been influenced, even where this is not explicitly stated, by Atlantic arc studies and by other studies of a similar nature.The communication analysed the overall position of short sea shipping in the Community rather than specific geographical areas, with the exception of the inclusion of a summary of the reports of the corridors studies co-financed by the Commission. Other reports dealing with specific geographical areas were not similarly summarised due to the need to produce a document of manageable length.The aim of the working groups on waterborne transport for the Baltic sea, the Black sea and the Mediterranean, mentioned in the question, is to strengthen the role of shipping in the relations between the Community and third countries in those adjoining regions. As such external relations issues do not arise in the case of the Atlantic arc, the Commission does not intend to initiate a similar working group in this area.The Commission would reiterate its interest in the development of short sea shipping in the geographical area covered by the Atlantic arc and its belief that short sea shipping can contribute to the development of peripheral maritime regions.