WRITTEN QUESTION P-2245/00 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Position of border areas in the management of the TACIS CBC programme.
Date: 2000-06-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, European Union, Russia, regional cooperation, regional government, technical cooperation

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/179

Given that the current fishing season(cid:146)s activity in this fishery has already commenced, it can be assumed
that the Commission has received the relevant data from each of the Member States involved and
has checked and validated it with a view to establishing the average number of vessels authorised in the
1993-1995 period, on the basis of which it was to fix the maximum number of vessels authorised
to fish in 2000.

Can the Commission supply the total annual figures for each EU Member State with regard to the number
of vessels authorised to fish and actually doing so continually and to the full extent in the albacore fishing
seasons in the North Atlantic in each year of the reference period, i.e. in 1993, 1994 and 1995?

What is the average established for each Member State with regard to vessels authorised to fish for
albacore and actually doing so continually during the period 1993 to 1995?

Can the Commission provide a breakdown by Member State of the total number of vessels authorised to
fish for albacore in 2000?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

In the framework of the application of the International commission for the conservation of Atlantic
tunas (ICCAT) recommendation concerning the number of vessels fishing for Northern Albacore, the
Commission has received from Member States the data corresponding to the reference levels for the period
1993-1995, as well as provisional data on the number of vessels they intend to authorise to participate
in the fishery in 2000.

The Commission is at present checking this information with the Member States, in order to apply this
ICCAT measure as soon as possible. Once the data has been confirmed it will be transmitted to the
Honourable Member.

(2001/C 81 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2245/00

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Position of border areas in the management of the TACIS CBC programme

The land border between the EU and Russia represents the world(cid:146)s largest gap in living standards. In its
communication (cid:145)Strategic Objectives 2000-2005(cid:146) the Commission stated that it would pay particular
attention to speeding up cooperation with Russia. In his answer to my question (P-1379/00) (1) Commis-
sioner Barnier said that in the implementation of Interreg III, the management of small projects promoting
cross-border activities could be directly entrusted to cross-border cooperation initiatives such as Euregios.

There are problems with decision-making in the TACIS CBC programme which hinder its coordination
with the Interreg programme in border areas between the EU and Russia. Decisions on the TACIS CBC
programme are taken in Brussels and this decision-taking is not programme-based, whereas decisions on
Interreg are taken at regional level on a programme basis.

According to the North Karelian Union (Finland) and the Republic of Karelia (Russia), the Commission has
not asked the regions, or the Karelia Euregio comprising the regions, for opinions on TACIS CBC projects
concerning which the Commission(cid:146)s decision is due to be taken on 28 June and confirmed in July.
The Commission also states that opinions have been requested only from the TACIS office in Moscow, the
TACIS regional technical offices and the Ministry in Moscow.

C 81 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

In the interest of developing the quality of cooperation in border areas and improving coordination
between TACIS and Interreg it would be desirable for the management of TACIS CBC projects (cid:129) as with
Interreg (cid:129) to be transferred to regional level, e.g. to the Euregio. At the very least, opinions on proposed
TACIS CBC projects should be requested from the Euregio or the recipient region, which (e.g. in the case
of the Republic of Karelia) has its own border areas programme.

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s attitude to the Karelia Euregio(cid:146)s proposal for a pilot scheme whereby the
Euregio management committee would take decisions on projects (cid:129) for TACIS CBC as for Interreg (cid:129) on a
programme basis at regional level?

Does the Commission intend in future to hear the views of the recipient regions (e.g. the Russian

2.
Republic of Karelia) on proposed projects as part of decision-making on TACIS CBC projects?

(1) See p. 34.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2000)

On 27 June 2000 the Commission presented, for discussion, to the TACIS management committee a
strategy paper on the TACIS CBC programme, outlining its future orientations. This paper will now lead,
first, to a full 4-year indicative programme detailing objectives and priorities, and then, to an annual
programme with a list of concrete projects to be financed under the budget 2000. Both programmes will
be presented to the TACIS committee later this year.

During the preparation of these strategic documents, opinions have been widely sought from a number of
partners. TACIS technical offices in St. Petersburg and Petrozavodk have, indeed, been particularly active in
channelling ideas coming from the relevant regions.

In addition, all TACIS CBC projects have local authorities and operators as counterparts, ensuring the full
involvement of the regions in the whole programme. This applies particularly to the demand-driven Small
project facility, promoting grass-root initiatives in the area.

Regarding the pilot scheme proposed by Karelia Euroregio, TACIS procedures do not allow the Com-
mission to transfer the decision-making responsibility to third parties.

(2001/C 81 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2248/00

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Non-Annex 1 export refunds

Will the European Commission explain in detail why it deems it necessary to suspend the issue of non-
Annex 1 export refund certificates as from 8 May 2000 by means of Regulation (EC) 1066/2000 (1)?

On what legal basis has the European Commission suspended the issue of non-Annex 1 export refund
certificates, given that Regulation (EC) 1702/1999 (2) refers (in paragraph 3a of the new Article 6b set out
under Article 15 of said Regulation) to Article 9(2) of the GATT Agreement on Agriculture?

Will the European Commission indicate the maximum amount of export refund available under the GATT
Agreement for the current financial year, given the, as yet, continuing right of carry-over from previous
years?