WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Excessive use of European Structural Fund resources for road construction in the five new Länder and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the Federal Republic of Germany).
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Structural Funds, development plan, road building, use of aid

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/27

2. Have the measures resulted in the protected status of the areas being impaired (e.g. as a result of
destruction of biotopes, afforestation of open areas or provision of firebreaks in woodland areas)?

3. Have the measures jeopardised the areas(cid:146) suitability as natural habitats (Directive 92/0043/EEC (1) on

the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)?

4. To what extent do the measures supported contradict environmental or nature conservation legislation
in force or violate the provision in the Community initiative Konver that measures supported must be
such as to improve the environment?

5.

Is the Commission aware that
application has been made to remove the protected status of the (cid:145)Am Spitzberg(cid:146) conservation area?

for the purpose of applying for more money from Konver an

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1999)

During the present programming period 1994-1999, Saxony is receiving grants from the structural funds
under the Konver Community initiative.

In application of the principles of partnership and subsidiarity, national or regional authorities are
responsible for the implementation of operational programmes and the selection of specific projects. In
the case of Saxony, the ministry of economics is responsible in the first instance. They are of course bound
by European legislation including that relating to nature protection legislation.

For the Konver Community initiative, priorities for funding are defined, and then specific projects are
selected during the implementation of the programme. It is certainly possible therefore to submit project
applications for the different priorities to the responsible authorities.

Should the Honourable Member be aware of a potential
in relation to the case of
(cid:145)Am Spitzberg(cid:146) or any other, he is invited to submit further details so that the Commission can take up
the matter with the German authorities.

infringement

(2000/C 170 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/99

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Excessive use of European Structural Fund resources for road construction in the five new L(cid:228)nder

and East Berlin (Objective 1 area of the Federal Republic of Germany)

The Federal German Government has decided that the substantial sum of DM 3,4 billion of ERDF
resources is to be spent on basic infrastructure from the Structural Funds for the new L(cid:228)nder, two thirds
of this amount being earmarked for long-distance road transport and only one third for rail transport.

This is inconsistent with the following principles adopted for the Structural Funds and considered essential
by the European Parliament:

(cid:129) the goal of harmoniously balanced and sustainable development;

(cid:129) the goal of increasing employment;

(cid:129) the goal of protecting and improving the environment;

C 170 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

(cid:129) the required balance among the various means of transport;

(cid:129) the required consideration of local transport systems, and especially citizens(cid:146) networks;

(cid:129) the required change to sustainable forms of transport to ensure compliance with the pledge to the

community to reduce propellant gas emissions;

(cid:129) the partnership principle, which involves the local and regional authorities and the social and

environmental partners in the decision-making on programming;

(cid:129) the principle of additionality, whereby the Structural Funds must not be misused to plug holes in

national budgets.

Does the Commission believe that a development plan with these emerging shortcomings can be

1.
approved for the Objective 1 area in Germany?

2.

If not, what delays can be expected in overall planning in the Objective 1 area?

3. What does the Commission think of the substantial proportion of new basic infrastructure building
projects when the interim evaluation for the Land of Brandenburg refers to (cid:145)quantitatively satisfactory
provision of roads and railway lines(cid:146) and, in contrast to this, a (cid:145)sharp decline in employment(cid:146)?

4.
How does the Commission rate compliance with the European principles when ERDF resources are
used for road construction projects that entail massive interference in a natural environment that is worth
protecting and for projects to which the population concerned is strongly opposed?

5. What practical steps will the Commission be taking to ensure that the Federal Government complies
with the principles governing the Structural Fund regulation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 1999)

The Commission is not currently able to comment on the issues raised by the Honourable Member
because the German plan for the next Objective 1 programming period (2000-2006) has not yet been
submitted.

The Commission will answer the questions raised as soon as it receives and examines the plan.

(2000/C 170 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Application of the directives on waste to textile waste in Prato

The Italian Government has recently drawn up a decree according to which textile waste will be regarded,
for disposal purposes, as a special waste product. However, the decree takes no account of the particular
nature of the Prato textile region and may place dozens of local businesses in serious difficulty if it is
applied with excessive rigour.

The textile waste in question can indeed be regarded as waste once it leaves the factory but it in fact
represents a raw material for much of the production in the area.

It is obvious, therefore, that application of Directives 91/0156/EEC (1) and 91/0689/EEC (2) would be
inappropriate in the case of this particular kind of textile waste.