WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3354/97 by Bertel HAARDER to the Commission. Structural aid for Central and Eastern Europe under Agenda 2000
Date: 1997-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, HAARDER
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU aid, Structural Funds, accession to the European Union, distribution of aid, gross domestic product

C 134/144

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

(98/C 134/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3354/97

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 October 1997)

Subject: Structural aid for Central and Eastern Europe under Agenda 2000

The Commission has given repeated assurances that countries other than Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic,
Slovenia and Estonia also have an opportunity to be included in the first round if they develop rapidly and move
closer to the requirements laid down for EU members. This was said, for example, by Commission President
Jacques Santer in answer to my question at Parliament(cid:146)s July part-session in Strasbourg.

This being so, it is strange that the Commission should be proposing to grant ECU 38 billion of structural aid to
the above five countries, while only ECU 7 billion is to be given to the countries that must wait outside in the first
round.

Such an allocation of funding serves only to confirm the suspicion that the countries are divided up into those that
have and that shall be given more and those that have not and that shall be given less. This (cid:145)St Matthew(cid:146) principle
is both unfortunate and unreasonable and will send the wrong signals to those countries that have most need of
being kept on track for democracy and the market economy.

Does the Commission consider this allocation to be appropriate, is it contemplating altering it and will it itself be
forwarding amended proposals to Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1997)

The Commission has always maintained that enlargement is a comprehensive process embracing all applicant
countries and that it includes the opening of accession negotiations with those countries according to the progress
made  by  each  of  them  in  terms  of  compliance  with  the  criteria  for  accession  laid  down  by  the  Copenhagen
European Council. In the reports which it has undertaken to prepare annually, the first being due at end-1998, the
Commission  will  recommend  that  the  Council  should  open  negotiations  with  every  country  which  the
Commission believes meets those criteria.

With regard to the amount of funding, the Commission does not share the Honourable Member’s view, in that
total preaccession aid under Agenda 2000 (1) is ECU 21 000 million, which on an annual-average basis is twice
the level expected in 1999.

In  addition,  preaccession  aid  for  those  countries  which  must  still  wait  outside  ›  in  the  terms  used  by  the
Honourable Member › would appear to be quite substantial: as a percentage of their gross domestic product it
easily bears comparison with that for the other applicant countries.

(1)  Doc. COM (97) 2000 final.

(98/C 134/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3356/97

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE) to the Commission

(16 October 1997)

Subject: Energy policy switch in Sweden

In June 1997, the Swedish Riksdag took a decision on Sweden(cid:146)s energy policy, entailing changes to the country(cid:146)s
energy supply system. The Swedish government has stated in this connection that Sweden(cid:146)s electricity supply is
to be based mainly on indigenous production. The Riksdag is soon to consider a draft law which would mean that
network  licences  for  new  links  with  other  countries  could  be  awarded  only  by  Svenska  Kraftna¤t,  a  wholly