WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3723/98 by Roy PERRY to the Commission. Community obligations to islands under the Treaty of Amsterdam
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: eligible region, island region, less-favoured region, regional development, rural region, structural policy

21.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 207/115

(1999/C 207/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3723/98

by Roy Perry (PPE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Community obligations to islands under the Treaty of Amsterdam

Now that the Treaty of Amsterdam has been signed and is generally expected to be ratified, what does the
European Commission intend to do to honour its obligations to islands under the new Article 158? Can the
Commission indicate any proposals it is considering making in order to meet its legal obligations under this
Article, once ratification has been completed?

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

(6 January 1999)

On 18 March 1998, the Commission approved a proposal for a General Regulation on the Structural Funds (1)
which translates into operational terms the guidelines set out in ‘Agenda 2000: for a stronger and wider
Union’ (2). In order to increase the impact of Community structural policies in regions facing the most
difficulty, the Commission is proposing that geographical concentration of assistance be tightened: the
proportion of the Community population in areas eligible under the new Objectives 1 and 2 should be around
35-40 % compared with 51 % at present under Objectives 1, 2, 5(b) and 6. This effort of concentration is to
involve all regions, including islands.

The wording of the future Article 158, such as it arises from the Treaty of Amsterdam in the process of
ratification, states that ‘the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of
the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas.’ This
Article does not therefore cover all islands but only those which have least-favoured status. The Commission
believes that the eligibility criteria proposed for the new Objectives 1 and 2 will make it possible to assess the
extent of the problems with which islands are confronted, bearing in mind that the individual circumstances of
different islands can be very diverse.

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998.
(2) COM(97) 2000 final.

(1999/C 207/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3725/98

by Carlos Carnero González (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Continued eligibility of the Autonomous Community of Cantabria (Spain) under Objective 1 of the

Structural Funds

Over the past few days various sections of the Spanish media have given coverage to the statistics released by
Eurostat on the average income of EU regions over the three-year period 1994-1996, which apparently reveal
that the figure for the Autonomous Community of Cantabria is slightly higher than 75 % of the Community
average.

According to several daily newspapers, these results have led the Spanish Government and the regional
authorities in Cantabria to assert that the region will no longer be covered by Objective 1 of the Structural
Funds in the new programming period.

Does the Commission believe that, in the light of these statistics, there are grounds for such an interpretation?

If so, does it not regard it as premature at this stage in the legislative debate for the central and regional
governments to draw the above conclusions, given the European Parliament’s request in a recent resolution for
more flexible criteria to be employed when it comes to drawing up the list of regions covered by Objective 1 of
the Structural Funds?

Does it take the view that purchasing power parity, the criterion employed by Eurostat, gives the most
satisfactory indication of a region’s real degree of wealth, or does it see the need rather to establish more
objective yardsticks, such as the average GDP of a region’s working population?