WRITTEN QUESTION P-0930/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Earthquake victims in Lazio.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU policy - national policy, Italy, Latium, State aid, aid to disaster victims, earthquake, emergency aid

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/81

These have improved notably following the visit of Indonesian President Wahid to Dili. The Commission
shares the serious concerns expressed regarding the continued presence of displaced people in West Timor,
and remains ready to support the efforts of the Indonesian authorities and the international community to
resolve the issue of their future.

The Commission is also following closely Indonesia(cid:146)s investigative efforts to establish the truth regarding
past human rights abuses in East Timor.
It welcomes the declared commitment of the Indonesian
authorities to bring to trial those responsible for such abuses.

(1) COM(2000) 50 final.

(2001/C 46 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0930/00

by Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2000)

Subject: Earthquake victims in Lazio

On 11 March 2000, several municipalities in Lazio,
Italy, were struck by a large earthquake. The
municipalities affected are situated in an upland area with particular social and economic problems,
together with a lack of transport links.

Because of the historic nature of the towns and villages in question, many buildings had not been brought
into line with recent legislation on protection against earthquakes, and were therefore highly vulnerable.

The initial estimate of the visible damage (cid:129) subject to investigations being made by the authorities (cid:129) is
tens of billions of lire (tens of millions of euro).

The people affected have had to find temporary accommodation in tents, containers or with relatives living
far away. Generally speaking, these people are in difficult financial circumstances or are elderly, and are
therefore particularly upset by the situation.

Given the above:

1. what urgent measures does the Commission intend to take in order to begin, without delay, the

process of restoring the areas in question?

2. what action does it
appropriate measures?

intend to take to encourage the regional and national authorities to take

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission is fully aware of the social and economic consequences for the Lazio municipalities
struck by the earthquake on 11 March.

Although there is no longer a budget heading specifically for emergency aid in the event of natural
disaster, the Commission will do all in its power to assist rebuilding in the areas concerned and to provide
the necessary help to the people affected.

It is important to stress that, while the main aim of the Community(cid:146)s structural and cohesion policies is to
help reduce economic and social disparities,
the Structural Funds do not constitute emergency aid.
However, their scope is such that they are able to provide significant assistance towards economic and
social reconstruction in disaster regions.

C 46 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds (1), which covers the 2000-2006 programming period, provides for several instruments
which can be used in future to provide assistance with rebuilding the infrastructures, capacities and means
of production which are essential to the economic development of the Community(cid:146)s regions.

Areas which are chosen for the new Objective 2 in Italy will be able to receive Structural Fund support;
disaster areas which are not selected to come under that new Objective but which were previously eligible
under the old Objectives 2 and 5b will also be able to obtain appropriations by way of transitional
support. Disaster areas which are not eligible will not be able to receive support under Objective 2 of the
Structural Funds.

Within the framework of these rules, the Commission will examine any applications from the national and
regional authorities with the utmost care.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/00

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s responsibility for monitoring the cross-border shipment of

large quantities of

hazardous waste from Hungary into EU Member States

In its answer of 11 January 2000 to my question about the shipment of 14 000 tonnes of waste
containing PCBs (E-2824/99) (1) the Commission said that Article 4 of Regulation 259/93 (2) implements
the Basle Convention in so far as it weighs up the objective of proximity in waste disposal against the need
to dispose of waste in an environmentally acceptable manner.

It has now been revealed that some of this waste has been brought to Saxony-Anhalt (Germany), and has
thus been transported through Austria and/or the Czech Republic.

In the light of the above:

1. How can the Commission judge in this case the rightness of the decision that, on balance, the
principle of proximity should not prevail and that such long transport routes were thus acceptable, if
it has no information about opportunities of environmentally friendly disposal of the waste at a nearer
destination?

2. What responsibility does the Commission consider is imposed upon it by its role of monitoring the

proper implementation of Regulation 259/93 in the Member States?

3. Does the Commission consider that, in a case where doubts might exist as to whether the regulation
has been complied with,
the necessary information from the authorities
responsible in the Member States for authorising the cross-border shipment of hazardous waste, so
as to check that the regulation is correctly implemented?

it should obtain all

(a)

If so, will it carry out such checks in the case of PCB waste from Gare (Hungary), and has it
already taken steps in that direction?

(b)

If not, why does it not consider such checks necessary?

4. Has the Commission yet received further information about the Gare case?

(a)

If so, what?

(b)

If not, why has it not yet received the information which it said in its reply to Question E-2824/
99 that it was still awaiting?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 139.
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.