WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission. Sicily and Sardinia after 2006.
Date: 2000-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: economic and social cohesion, enlargement of the Union, less-favoured region, peripheral region

C 151 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: The outermost regions

With reference to the answer to Written Question E-0605/00 (1), in which the Commission explains its
the
intention to take into greater consideration the outermost regions for the period from 2007,
undersigned would like to express his approval of such an initiative. However, does the Commission
share the opinion of the member that the term (cid:145)outermost regions(cid:146) covers not only horizontally, but also
vertically remote regions, so that inevitably mountain regions may also in future be regarded by definition
as Objective 1 regions?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2000)

The concept of remote regions does not appear in the EC Treaty and is consequently not taken up in any
act of secondary legislation.

Article 299 (formerly 227) of the Treaty recognises as the (cid:145)outermost regions(cid:146) only the French overseas
departments, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

A number of remote regions including archipelagos and mountain areas are eligible for support from the
Union(cid:146)s Structural Funds under Objectives 1 (regions lagging behind in development) and 2 (regions
undergoing conversion).

(2001/C 151 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/00

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: European Union regional policy

Given that the imminent enlargement equates to an increase in the extent of regional inequalities and a
reduction in the European Union(cid:146)s average per capita GDP, it is clear that the Commission must present, in
good time, an integrated proposal on the form that regional policy should take, criteria for its application
and the level of financial resources after 2006.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s plans on this point?

(2001/C 151 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) and Mariotto Segni (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Sicily and Sardinia after 2006

(20 September 2000)

The Commission has forecast that at the end of the 2000-2006 Structural Fund programming period,
Sicily and Sardinia will no longer come under Objective 1.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/29

That forecast is based, among other things, on the fact that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
will most probably have joined the EU by then.

Given that the loss of Objective 1 status will be a severe economic blow to the two islands,

what action does the Commission feel it should take to maintain the cohesion of Objective 1 regions, with
particular reference to peripheral and island regions?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2955/00 and E-2966/00
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

In January 2001 the Commission is to adopt the second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which
will be submitted to Parliament under Article 159 (formerly Article 130b) of the EC Treaty.

The report will consider the position and development of the regions in the context of an enlarged Union,
evaluate the impact of Community policies on cohesion and propose guidelines for cohesion policy
beyond 2006.

The Commission wants this second report to be the catalyst for a major debate on the future of this policy.
To this end it is organising in May 2001 a forum to which the Members of Parliament and all those
actively involved in regional development in the current Member States and in the applicant countries are
to be invited.

(2001/C 151 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2959/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Problem of the (cid:145)flooded(cid:146) cereals harvest

The Commission has recently stated its willingness to modify the intervention standards for the moisture
content of cereals if so required by the situation on the ground. It is now clear that the intervention
standards need to be modified as a matter of necessity. After the excessive precipitation farmers are talking
of a (cid:145)flooded(cid:146) harvest.

Has the Commission already drawn up proposals for modifying the intervention standards for the moisture
content? If so, when will the proposal enter into force? If not, given the seriousness of the situation on the
ground, will the Commission still modify the intervention standards for the moisture content?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

The Commission took action following its statement on the moisture content of cereals from the 2000
harvest through Regulation (EC) No 2107/2000 of 4 October 2000 derogating, as regards the maximum
moisture content of certain cereals offered for intervention during the 2000/2001 marketing year, from
Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention
agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (1).

The Regulation authorises Member States to set the maximum moisture content for common wheat, barley
and rye at 15 %, subject to the price reductions given in the Annex. The Regulation is to apply from
1 November, the date on which intervention begins in the northern Member States.

(1) OJ L 250, 5.10.2000.