WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/00 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006.
Date: 2000-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Structural Funds, accession to the European Union, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria, eligible region, less-favoured region, regional planning

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/77

In addition to this consideration, it is undoubtedly the case now that the average in the applicant countries
lies far below both this 75 % figure and average GDP in the existing Objective 1 regions, and this will
certainly still be the case when the first applicant countries accede to the EU.

In view of these facts, will the Council say what criteria will be employed in selecting the future Objective
1 regions in the next programming period beginning on 1 January 2007, after the accession of some of
the applicant countries?

What guidelines will govern the approach in respect of structural aid to current Objective 1 regions in the
EU which exceed the 75 % average when the new programming period commences on 1 January 2007 as
a result of the accession of applicant countries? Is a transition or phasing-out period similar in nature to
that of the current programming period being considered as an option? Or conversely, as would appear
logical, will a new transition system be set up for those Objective 1 regions whose GDP exceeds 75 % of
average GDP in the Member States as a whole, including the new Member States, but remains below that
75 % mark in respect of the Fifteen?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council has not yet received a proposal from the Commission defining the criteria for selecting future
Objective 1 regions for the next programming period, from 1 January 2007. Consequently the Council
cannot give a more precise reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions.

(2001/C 163 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3283/00

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Structural aid for Objective 1 regions from 2006

In the current programming period Objective 1 regions are those whose per capita GDP (cid:129) measured in
standard purchasing power and calculated on the basis of Community data for the three most recent years
available on 26 March 1999 (cid:129) is less than 75 % of the average in the 15 Member States which currently
make up the EU.

In addition to this consideration, it is undoubtedly the case now that the average in the applicant countries
lies far below both this 75 % figure and average GDP in the existing Objective 1 regions, and this will
certainly still be the case when the first applicant countries accede to the EU.

In view of these facts, will the Commission say what criteria will be employed in selecting the future
Objective 1 regions in the next programming period beginning on 1 January 2007, after the accession of
some of the applicant countries?

What guidelines will govern the approach in respect of structural aid to current Objective 1 regions in the
EU which exceed the 75 % average when the new programming period commences on 1 January 2007 as
a result of the accession of applicant countries? Is a transition or phasing-out period similar in nature to
that of the current programming period being considered as an option? Or conversely, as would appear
logical, will a new transition system be set up for those Objective 1 regions whose GDP exceeds 75 % of
average GDP in the Member States as a whole, including the new Member States, but remains below that
75 % mark in respect of the Fifteen?

C 163 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission is currently preparing the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which it
expects to adopt in January 2001. The report will analyse the situation and the trend of cohesion within
the fifteen Member States, the contribution of the various Community policies to cohesion and the
situation in Europe after enlargement. On these bases, it will present alternatives for cohesion policy in
future.

This report will therefore be a starting point for chosing the options for a future cohesion policy and
launching a wide-ranging debate, in particular within the framework of a Forum on Cohesion, which the
Commission will organise in first half of 2001 with the participation of Parliament.

At the proper time and on the basis of discussions with the other institutions, the Commission will be
submitting its proposals on future cohesion policy.

(2001/C 163 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3284/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2000)

Subject: EDF funding for the island of St Maarten

The Commission(cid:146)s reply to my previous question on the same subject (E-2352/00) (1) did not provide any
additional substantive information to that contained in the question itself, and given that:

(cid:129) there is an urgent need to rebuild the urban infrastructures of the overseas territory in question,

particularly in the wake of the recent hurricanes;

(cid:129) this is hard to reconcile with the fact that only 0,6 % of the funding allocated under EDF VIII, much of

which was earmarked for the construction of urban infrastructures, was actually committed;

(cid:129) the allegedly limited absorption capacity of the territory in question hardly accords with the island of

St Maarten(cid:146)s very obvious unmet needs;

(cid:129) even if the commitment rate of EDF funds for the Dutch Antilles does not differ significantly from that
of other partner countries, that does not mean that such a rate is compatible with the objectives of the
EDF, let alone that it represents a model of efficiency;

(cid:129) the local authorities of the island of St Maarten seem to have submitted numerous projects to the
National Authorising Officer of the Dutch Antilles to be forwarded to the Commission to enable the
financial resources allocated under the EDF to be committed.

In view of the foregoing:

(cid:129) would the Commission ascertain the possibility of speeding up the process and procedures for the

commitment of the EDF funds earmarked for the Dutch Antilles?

(cid:129) would the Commission ascertain whether the delay in committing the EDF funds earmarked for the
Dutch Antilles, including the island of St Maarten, conflicts with the principles which determine the
objectives and smooth operation of the European Development Fund itself?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.