WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council. Coordination of forest protection classifications.
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European forestry policy, forest conservation, powers of the institutions (EU)

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/91

needed to assure its economic viability on the market. In sum, the Commission does not discriminate
against hydropower in its energy policy, but tries to focus public support on the types of renewable energy
sources where it is most needed and justified in economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.

(2001/C 89 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1813/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Ecofin meeting of 28 February 2000

Did the Council discuss common rules governing national tax cuts at the Ecofin Council meeting of
28 February 2000 or at any other meeting?

If so:

1. Did the Council reach agreement on these common rules?

2. Could the Council explain the criteria adopted for the assessment of whether a Member State may cut

taxes without contravening commitments on budgetary discipline?

3. Could the Council explain why details of the agreement did not appear in the Council conclusions

published following the meeting?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it has not discussed common rules governing
national tax cuts, or the other issues raised in his question at its meeting of 28 February 2000 or at any
other, and thus is not in position to give an answer.

(2001/C 89 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Coordination of forest protection classifications

(13 June 2000)

In Europe, an area of some 3 million hectares of forest has been strictly protected. This equals 1,6 % of
forests in Europe. The Nordic countries are top of the list and in a league of their own as regards the area
of protected forests in the EU.

As a Finnish MEP, I am somewhat concerned about the classification of forest protection, which is still
carried out on a purely national basis. The lack of conformity in protection classification and statistical
data is a problem which should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

What is the Council(cid:146)s view of the importance of coordinating forest protection classifications, and will the
issue be raised when the 6th Environmental Programme is being drawn up?

C 89 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The question whether to include the classification of forest protection in the Commission(cid:146)s proposals for
the 6th Environmental Programme falls within the competence of the Commission.

(2001/C 89 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/00

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Corrigenda to calls for proposals relating to the Interprise programme

Two corrigenda to calls for proposals relating to the Interprise programme were published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (1). The first corrigendum refers to the call for proposals (2), two
points of which are amended. Firstly, the period for the execution of an Interprise project proposal is
halved from 12 months in the original version to 6 months, and the number of deadlines originally
envisaged for the submission of proposals is reduced from four to two, the deadlines 30 June 2000 and
30 September 2000 being cancelled.

The second corrigendum then completely cancels the call
concerning the organisation of Interprise events to be held in nine associated countries.

for proposals (3) (cid:129) to which it refers (cid:129)

Can the Commission say:

(cid:129) why it amended and then cancelled the calls for proposals;

(cid:129) whether it does not consider that these corrigenda made shortly before the envisaged deadlines
(already set in the Official Journal in 1999) adversely affected any organisations which were about to
organise or may already have organised events linked to the Interprise programme;

(cid:129) whether and how it

intends to re-issue the calls for proposals relating to the aforementioned

programme?

(1) OJ C 134, 13.5.2000, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 307, 26.10.1999.
(3) OJ C 69 of 10.3.2000.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2000)

The two corrigenda published (1) are in line with the new shift in Commission policy towards the analysis
and the drawing up of proposals of a political nature and a reduction in the direct management of projects
in the field. In order to concentrate more on its new tasks, such as benchmarking to help identify good
practice regarding enterprise policy, encouraging the spirit of enterprise, developing an environment suited
to innovation and guaranteeing access to the markets for products and services, the Commission has
decided to limit certain actions directly managed by its departments, including the Interprise programmes
and the (cid:145)International Buyers Exhibitions(cid:146) (IBEX). This does not call into question their merit (2).

In order not to prejudice the interests of tenderers who had already submitted a project, the Commission
left in force the first two deadlines of the call published (3). Projects submitted by these two deadlines have
been assessed. Some of them have already received the Commission(cid:146)s support.

For the call for proposals published (4) concerning the organisation of an Interprise event in each of the
associated countries, the corrigendum was published shortly before the deadline. Although some of the
potential
them had begun the
organisational work without the favourable opinion of the Commission. Those which had submitted a
proposal were informed by letter of the cancellation of the call for proposals.

tenderers may have invested time in preparing proposals, none of