WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/00 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas.
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Piedmont, eligible region

C 46 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

It was the Council(cid:146)s wish to restrict the aid to wine grapes, its purpose as part of the COM being to reduce
the volume of wine on the market. Table grapes fall exclusively within the COM for fruit and vegetables.

Given this clear exclusion by the Council of aid for grape juice production from table grapes the
Commission cannot propose any implementing provisions to the contrary.

(2001/C 46 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Turin and the Italian proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas

On 1 October 1999, Italy submitted its proposal on the coverage of Objective 2 areas for the period
2000-2006; the proposal was, however rejected. The statistics used by Italy (cid:129) based on local employment
systems (cid:129) conflicted with the Eurostat statistics on the administrative provinces referred to by the
Commission (benchmarks for all Member States). Italy thus has to (cid:145)adjust(cid:146) its proposal.

This matter is of particular concern to Turin and its 936 000 inhabitants: according to the 1995-1997
unemployment statistics for the province, Turin should not be eligible for funds under Objective 2 (unless
workers that have been laid off and are recipients of income support from the (cid:145)Cassa Integrazione(cid:146) earnings
supplement fund are included in the statistics (cid:129) a fair argument which the EU for some reason rejects);
more recent statistics (1996-1998), meanwhile, appear to qualify the province and most of the city of
Turin for inclusion in Objective 2.

For 2000-2006, Italy is entitled to approximately ITL 4 000 billion (for Objective 2) of EU funds. Piedmont
could receive some ITL 1 400 billion (taking into account national co-financing) over seven years and Turin
should receive over 100 billion per year (even on the basis of the old statistics).

Turin is still awaiting authorisation from Brussels, however. Does the Commission foresee any fresh
obstacles? What outstanding issues need to be resolved? How long will it take for the procedures to be
finalised, albeit tardily? Can Italy be assured that it will receive co-financing?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that each day(cid:146)s delay is a step backwards for the population of
Piedmont and for Turin in terms of economic recovery?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Italy sent the Commission its Objective 2 zoning proposal on 1 October 1999. The Commission replied
on 11 October that the proposal was unacceptable owing to non-compliance with Article 4(4) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1). This requires areas meeting the criteria of paragraphs 5 and 6 of that Article to account for at
least 50 % in population terms of each country(cid:146)s Objective 2 areas.

To ensure identical treatment of the Member States the same statistical series must be used for verification
of these criteria in each of them. Thus in line with Article 4(2) the Commission on 23 June 1999 sent all
Member States concerned by Objective 2 the statistics pertaining to the criteria. As decided by the Council
these were the figures available at the time of the Berlin European Council. For the unemployment rate this
means that the figures considered are those for 1995, 1996 and 1997. These figures have been used to
zone for Objective 2 in the eleven Member States for which the Commission has already drawn up the list
of eligible areas for the 2000-2006 programming period.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/85

On the basis of the figures the Province of Turin does not meet the criteria of Article 4(5) and (6). The
Commission pointed out however that the zones of the province could perfectly well be submitted as
national priority areas for Objective 2 under the criteria of paragraphs 7 to 9 of Article 4.

On 11 October 1999 the Commission invited Italy to draw up with all speed a revised Objective 2 zoning
proposal in line with the regulatory provisions unanimously adopted by the Council after full considera-
tion of the situation. The Commission regrets that no proposal has yet been received. It has several times
drawn to Italy(cid:146)s attention the need for urgent action so as not to penalise the areas in question. Italy is the
only Member State for which it has not yet been possible to adopt Objective 2 zoning.

The Commission Decision of 1 July 1999 sets at € 2 522 million (1999 prices) Italy(cid:146)s Structural Fund
allocation for Objective 2 for the 2000-2006 programming period. This is unaffected by the delay in
designating the qualifying areas.

As soon as the list of these has been adopted by the Commission on the basis of a revised proposal, it will
fall to Italy to decide how the allocation is to be split between the areas concerned. Assistance must be
concentrated on those worst affected.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Ban on the use of impregnating salts for treatment of wood

The use of impregnating salts to treat wood (impregnated wood) has serious consequences for humans and
the environment. Such salts contain highly toxic arsenic, chromium IV and copper. Impregnated wood is
used among other things in summer houses, fencing, toys, pergolas, garden furniture and rail sleepers.

Since February 2000 in the Netherlands there has been a ban on sales of all products made from
impregnated wood. The State Council issued a ruling against the cutting up of impregnated wood. Nor
may such wood be considered as a fuel for power stations, as a constituent of chipboard and cattlefeed, as
compost in gardens and around trees, or as a substitute for straw in cowsheds.

Is the Commission prepared (cid:129) in line with the Dutch example (cid:129) to draw up a directive banning
in view of the negative consequences for humans and the

1.
products made from impregnated wood,
environment?

(a)

If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?

(b)

If not, why is the Commission opposed to a European ban on products made from impregnated
wood?

Is the Commission prepared to draw up a directive banning the cutting-up of impregnated wood, in

2.
view of the negative consequences for humans and the environment?

(a)

If so, has the Commission already taken steps in this direction?

(b)

If not, why is the Commission opposed to a European ban on products made from impregnated
wood?