WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission. The Moluccas.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Moluccas, Netherlands, United Kingdom, common foreign and security policy, humanitarian aid

C 46 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

(2001/C 46 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: European sustainable transport policy

In terms of identifying the major cities along the T-TEN priority project routes, can the Commission say
how such decisions were made and who was involved in this decision-making process? What criteria were
used and who were the winners and losers in such decisions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Trans-European Network-transport (TEN-T) guidelines identify the key routes of trans-European
importance, which include those routes covered by the TEN-T priority projects. The guidelines contain a
set of maps, outlining all these key routes. Where cities are named on these maps, they are included only
as reference points, and many cities have access to the TEN-T network, without appearing on the maps.

Over 1990-1992, the Commission set up a number of working parties, with representatives from each
Member State, which developed a set of outline plans. These plans identified the routes of trans-European
importance, taking account of traffic flows and the need to link peripheral regions with the centre of the
Community. The working parties did not specifically identify cities along the TEN-T routes. These outline
plans were then incorporated into the TEN-T guidelines, adopted by the Council and Parliament under the
co-decision procedure in 1996 (1).

The Commission is currently considering how best to take forward these issues in its report on the
revision of the TEN-T guidelines that will be submitted to the Council and Parliament this summer.

(1) OJ C 17, 22.1.1996.

(2001/C 46 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0592/00

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: The Moluccas

The second emergency aid programme for the Moluccas (€ 900 000) will end in late February. The
Commission is now working on a third programme. Up to now this aid has been channelled through
French and Belgian NGOs. Is the Commission prepared to involve Dutch NGOs which consult with
Moluccan organisations in the Netherlands with diverse links with the Moluccas in order to achieve a
peaceful, stabilising effect?

Will the Commission also ensure that structural aid, which it has given to Novib and Oxfam UK, for
example, and which cannot be spent because of the conflicts, can be spent on reconciliation and
preventive action in the context of emergency aid and rehabilitation?

Can the Commission inform us of the additional support for developing Indonesia? From which category
will any appropriations be taken? Is it prepared to include in the aid package the possibility of contacts
and exchanges between the capital, Djakarta, and the conflict regions such as the Moluccas and Aceh?

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/17

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Commision(cid:146)s Humanitarian Office (ECHO) intervenes in the Moluccas in order to ease the welfare of
the inhabitants. In 1999, € 1 million were committed for two projects, covering medical supplies, water
and sanitation, and food. At present, an aid project covering the same areas is under way for an amount of
€ 900 000. The Commission is examining the continuation of these projects for another six months for
food, medical and water and sanitation assistance to the displaced people. It is expected that further funds
will be committed for this purpose.

The Commission has not received any project proposals for humanitarian assistance to Moluccas(cid:146) displaced
people from Dutch non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Commission is also particularly attentive regarding the tens of thousands of displaced people in
northern Molucca.

As to the question whether unused funds for previous or continuing projects can be re-directed to support
reconciliation and preventive action, it is clear that such a re-attribution exceeding the objectives of the
original project is not possible, according to the legal basis of the Commission(cid:146)s action.

through the available co-operation instruments,

The recently published communication on developing closer relations with Indonesia (1), outlines the
Commission(cid:146)s pro-active development strategy, understood as a long-term and comprehensive approach. It
includes contributions,
to the social and economic
development of
Indonesia. Particular attention is paid to poverty alleviation and to the sustainable
management of natural resources (forestry-co-operation is already one of the key areas). It also includes
the establishment of a comprehensive political dialogue to support the anchoring of democracy, the
promotion of human rights, the rule of law, good governance, internal dialogue and reconciliation within
the country, and the intensification of Community trade and investment relations with Indonesia. The
document calls on all the Community(cid:146)s partners to support the process of restructuring Indonesia(cid:146)s
economy.

For the 1995-1999 period, Community funding for Indonesia (cid:129) from the general Asia development
budget line (cid:129) amounted to less than € 20 million a year, to which some funding for human rights projects
should be added, available through the Asia human rights budget line.The Commission is committed to
increase its financial input for Indonesia, in line with the above priorities.

(1) COM(2000) 50.

(2001/C 46 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Possibility of granting the outermost regions permanent Objective 1 status

The outermost regions of
their
geographical remoteness and the distances separating them from the nerve centres of the respective
Community countries to which they belong.

the European Union face particularly severe difficulties because of

Because of this, and the fact that some of the outermost regions of the EU may exceed the ceiling of 75 %
of average Community income, which would exclude them from the group of regions covered by
Objective 1, with the risk that they would end up rejoining that group as a result of lack of assistance, it
has been suggested that the outermost regions should be considered as belonging by definition to
Objective 1.