WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00 by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Regional policy.
Date: 2000-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Structural Funds, eligibility criteria

C 46 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The following consents under Directive 90/220/EEC for placing on the market of the genetically modified
parental material have been given: the varieties Compa CB and Jordi CB, by Commisison Decision 97/98/
EC (Novartis Bt-176 maize line), the variety Chardon LL, by Commission Decision 98/293/EC (AgrEvo T25
maize line), and the variety Elgina by Commission Decision 98/294/EC (Monsanto 810 maize line).

On that basis, three Member States (Spain and Portugal for Compa CB; Spain for Jordi CB; Netherlands for
Chardon LL and Portugal for Elgina) have notified to the Commission the acceptance of these varieties in
their national catalogues in accordance with the provisions of Directive 70/457/EEC for marketing of seeds
within their respective territories. Under the acceptance procedures carried out by the three Member States
concerned, material of these varieties has been subjected to field trials.

The free marketing of such seeds throughout the Community would require, under the same Directive, the
inclusion of the four varieties in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

However, the initial acceptance of the varieties Compa CB and Elgina in the Portuguese national catalogue
was suspended by a decision of the ministry of Agriculture of Portugal dated 27 December 1999. As a
consequence the variety Elgina is currently no longer eligible either for inclusion in the common catalogue
or for marketing in the Community. This does not apply to the variety Compa CB, because of its
acceptance by Spain.

At present, discussions with Member States are going on, in order to provide a coherent solution in
respect of all aspects relating to the marketing of GMO products. Therefore, the Commission has at this
stage not completed the examination of the qualification of the remaining three varieties for inclusion in
the common catalogue. The standing committee on seeds and propagating material
for agriculture,
horticulture and forestry has been informed accordingly.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970.

(2001/C 46 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Mart(cid:237)nez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Regional policy

Addressing the Committee on Regional Policy, Mr Landaburu recently stated that if there is to be
improvement and greater efficiency it is essential to modify or broaden the criteria, rather than simply
continuing to use GDP per inhabitant as the sole indicator.

What other criteria does he believe should be included?

Has a decision already been taken on these new indicators?

When is any such decision expected to be adopted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (1) refers to per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Article states that the
regions covered by Objective 1 (those whose development is lagging behind) are NUTS level II regions
whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community
figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/27

The GDP of a region is a global indicator of its production activity. It is therefore a suitable instrument for
measuring regions(cid:146) levels of economic development. Moreover, since 1998 the per capita GDP expressed in
purchasing power parity and calculated at NUTS level II has been used to determine whether regions may
be covered by Objective 1.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the aforementioned Regulation, the list of regions
covered by Objective 1 was drawn up by the Commission on 1 July 1999. This list will remain valid until
31 December 2006.

With this in mind, for the 2000-2006 period the Commission does not intend to propose eligibility
criteria for Objective 1 different to those adopted by the Council and Parliament.

In addition, the distribution of total appropriations between regions eligible under Objective 1 is based on
criteria other than the region(cid:146)s per capita GDP, in particular the unemployment rate.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that, in the context of Objective 2 (regions
under conversion), Article 4 of the same Regulation envisages a number of criteria in addition to the per
capita GDP which may be used to justify the eligibility of the proposed areas.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0655/00

by Michel Rocard (PSE) to the Council

(13 March 2000)

Subject: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on the (cid:145)worst forms of child labour(cid:146) (No 182)

In June 1999 the ILO adopted a new convention on (cid:145)the worst forms of child labour (No 182)(cid:146).

Which Member States have ratified this convention?

Does the current Council Presidency envisage measures to encourage all the Member States to ratify this
convention as soon as possible?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

At the end of March 2000, the United Kingdom, Finland and Ireland had ratified the Convention in
question. In addition, two other European States and seven non-European States had ratified it. In Spain,
the instrument of ratification is before the Parliament.

The Presidency underlines the importance of this Convention being ratified by as many States as possible,
recalling its exceptional unanimous adoption by the International Labour Conference in 1999, and its
significant role in the efforts to improve the situation of the children of the world.

Consequently the Presidency, although it is aware of the differences between the Member States as regards
their ratification procedures, will use the means at its disposal to underline for them the necessity and
importance of the ratification as soon as possible of this important Convention.