WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/00 by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission. Consequences of building a harbour on the Vila Praia de Âncora coast.
Date: 2000-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Northern Portugal, Portugal, eligibility criteria, environmental impact, harbour installation

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/43

In its notice on town-twinning grants (1), the Commission has however announced that the previous
procedure will be changed and that it will issue before the end of the year 2000 a call for proposals
focusing on priority topics, with clearly defined selection criteria for the award of grants.

This notice has aroused a great deal of uncertainty in the communes of Baden-W(cid:252)rttemberg over the
arrangements which the Commission intends to make in future for the promotion of town-twinning.

Can the Commission answer the following questions in particular?

1. How will the closing date for applications be calculated in future (up to now it has been a three-

month period)?

2. How many calls for proposals for town-twinning will it issue each year?

3. What precisely does it mean by (cid:145)priority topics(cid:146) and will this make it more difficult to establish new

town-twinning arrangements or to revive existing ones?

4.

Is it aware, in addition, that the application procedure is disproportionately complicated, especially for
small communes, and can it see any way of simplifying that procedure?

(1) OJ C 238, 22.8.2000, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2000)

The Commission continues to be very much aware that the town-twinning assistance programme needs to
be managed effectively if it is to be a complete success.

In view of past difficulties and the needs arising from them, and given the large number and variety of
proposals received, the Commission is introducing a new procedure which should help to improve
effectiveness.

An information meeting on this new call for proposals procedure was held on 23 October, to which
representatives of the CEMR, the national associations of the 15 Member States, the central and eastern
European countries, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey, the UTO and the Assembly of European Regions were
invited.

The questions raised by the Honourable Members have already been dealt with in the new call for
proposals.

The Commission notes the concerns voiced by the Honourable Members and will keep Parliament
informed of developments relating to the new procedures.

(2001/C 151 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/00

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Consequences of building a harbour on the Vila Praia de ´ncora coast

(cid:145)Quercus(cid:146), a nationwide Portuguese association for the protection of the environment, has written to the
Commission to ask it to intervene in the scheme to build a new, small harbour at ´ncora, near the town
of Viana do Castelo,
in northern Portugal, protesting that the construction work (which is receiving
Community funding) threatens areas which form part of the Nature 2000 network and the Corine Biotope,
over and above damaging the shoreline in question.

C 151 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Is the Commission going to investigate the problem and take appropriate measures, or does it believe that
the environmental impact assessment already carried out provides adequate guarantees?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to a letter sent by the Portuguese non-government organisation
(NGO) Quercus to the Commission objecting to the projected building of the new port of Vila Praia de
´ncora. That project, which would receive Community funding, would be a threat to a beach and a
Natura 2000 site. The Honourable Member is asking, in this connection, whether the Commission intends
to analyse the problem and take any action needed or whether, conversely, it feels that the environmental
impact study conducted offers sufficient guarantees.

the sites in question being affected by the project

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) states that any plan or project not directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon should be subject to
appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site(cid:146)s conservation aims. It has
emerged that the letter in question does not provide sufficiently precise information to enable the
likelihood of
to be analysed. For that reason
the Commission has written to the plaintiff in order to request further information which might show
that the project is likely to affect habitats and species whose protection has prompted the proposal
concerning the site in question. Moreover, the Commission is in the process of drafting a letter to be sent
to the Portuguese authorities in order to draw their attention to this matter and obtain their comments on
the subject. Finally, it should be pointed out, as regards the possibility of Community funding, that the
Commission will not fail to take account of this and to take any action considered to be the most
appropriate.

The Commission will not fail to keep the plaintiff informed of any further action that might be taken in
this instance.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora

(OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 151 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3033/00

by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: EU-Turkey Partnership Agreement

At the Helsinki Summit it was decided that Turkey was a candidate for accession to the EU subject to
certain specific and expressly defined conditions.

The Commission is obviously concerned to ensure that summit decisions are implemented precisely, and
that the fundamental principles underpinning the outlook of European peoples and their governments are
fully observed. However, the violent reaction of a section of the Turkish press to the talks held by the
Commission delegation last July in Ankara creates the impression that certain parties may be attempting to
exclude from the draft of the Turkey-EU partnership agreement explicit references to the conditions
relating to Turkey(cid:146)s candidate status.

What steps will the Council take to ensure that the conditions which the Helsinki Summit attached to
Turkey(cid:146)s status as a candidate for accession, namely a settlement of the Cyprus problem, an improvement
in the human rights situation, resolution of the Kurdish problem, Turkish claims in the Aegean and their
settlement by the International Court in The Hague, the democratisation of the political system, together
with the other Helsinki political criteria (cid:129) are incorporated in the main body of the text and not the
preamble of the prospective partnership agreement?