WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds.
Date: 2000-01-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, EU regional policy, peripheral region

C 374 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

To this end the Commission has launched a benchmarking initiative of innovation performances and
policies in the Community. Innovation will also be discussed at the informal meeting of industry ministers
on 10 March 2000 in Nordwijk in the Netherlands. The Commission hopes the discussions will give a
significant input into the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March 2000.

(1) COM(95) 688 final.
(2) COM(96) 589 final.

(2000/C 374 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0021/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: The outermost regions and the allocation of structural funds

The programming of structural funds in the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 1994 to
1999 envisaged structural support worth PTE 149 200 075 million or EUR 744,207 million, equivalent to
EUR 124,034 million per year, according to the latest rescheduling in 1999.

Although it already reflects the upward adjustment resulting from the relevant deflator, the amount is still
quoted at current prices, since it is difficult to update it to 1999 prices.

In a letter to the Portuguese authorities dated 1 July 1999 the Commission proposed an indicative
allocation of EUR 757 million for the Autonomous Region of the Azores for the period 2000 to 2006,
equivalent to EUR 108 million per year.

This represents a substantial reduction, much more than the apparent reduction of EUR 16 million, in that
the value for 1994-1999 has not been updated for 1999 and does not take account of the rise in revenue
in both the Azores and the Community.

This Commission proposal blatantly contradicts all the promises and statements made by the Commission
with regard to the outermost regions, in particular:

1.

2.

3.

that the resources would be concentrated in the poorest regions;

that these regions would receive more amounts per year;

that the outermost regions in particular would benefit.

Apparently insensitive to the reality of numbers, the Commission continues to claim that the reform of the
structural funds has brought more resources to all the outermost regions.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to carry out a thorough review of the impact of the reform
of Community policies in the poorest and most isolated regions, such as the Autonomous Region of the
Azores, in particular in the context of the application of Article 299(2) of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s letter to the Portuguese Government of 1 July 1999 to which the Honourable Member
refers did no more than set out the consequence of the mathematical application of the general criteria
that it had laid down for distributing structural aid to the various regions. Accordingly, this letter
contained a purely hypothetical allocation of these amounts and did not seek to replace an analysis
based on other considerations that might be taken into account when preparing the Community Support
Framework.

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/19

Thus the Regional Development Plan presented by the Portuguese authorities on 13 October 1999
proposed allocating to the autonomous region of the Azores, under the regional operational programme
to be applied, a total of EUR 848 million from the Structural Funds, plus a sum still to be determined for
aid from Cohesion Fund. The Commission has no objection to the Portuguese proposal.

As requested by the Cologne European Council, the Commission will submit to the Council a report on
measures to implement the new Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty concerning the outermost
regions. This report should be submitted to the Council during the Portuguese Presidency and will also be
forwarded to Parliament.

(2000/C 374 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 January 2000)

Subject: Cuts in the Poseima budget

In its letter of amendment No 4 to the PDB for 2000, the Commission increases the appropriations for
other programmes to the detriment of Poseima, claiming that budgetary requirements for the latter are
declining. However, according to the report on the outermost regions which it adopted on 22 December
1999, spending on Poseima in 1999 exceeded the initial budget. What are the Commission(cid:146)s grounds for
cutting this budget?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission(cid:146)s answers to his Written Question
E-0038/00 (1) and to Written Question E-2403/99 by Mrs Fiqueiredo (2).

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
(2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 125.

(2000/C 374 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2000)

Subject: The relationship between the Structural Funds and the non-implementation of EU environmental

legislation by a Member State

Given that, on 23 June 1999, Mrs Wulf-Mathies and Mrs Bjerregaard, then Commissioners, wrote to
Member State governments warning them of possible delays in approval of programmes and projects if, in
particular, notifications of protected sites under the Habitats and Wild Bird Directives had not been
received, that Court proceedings had been started against Ireland in February 1999 because of unsatisfac-
tory notification and delays in Ireland(cid:146)s designation of protected sites under the Habitats Directive and that
the Commission was also considering infringement proceedings against Ireland under the Wild Birds
Directive, what is the likelihood that the Commission will not proceed with the approval of plans and
operational programmes from Ireland, and/or what is the likelihood that EU funding will be suspended, in
part or in whole, as a result of Ireland(cid:146)s perceived non-compliance on these issues?