WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/00 by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE) and Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Agriculture in Capaccio-Paestum.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Campania, competence of the Member States, cultural heritage, less-favoured agricultural area, operational programme, rural development

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/123

(2001/C 187 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4051/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Inclusion of Naousa in the URBAN initiative

(9 January 2001)

The aim of the URBAN initiative is the economic and social regeneration of cities and neighbourhoods in
crisis with a population of between 20 and 50 000 inhabitants. Naousa is a town whose inhabitants have
been hit by poverty and unemployment since the 1990s, with long-term unemployment standing at 40 %.
This situation has come about through the closure or below-capacity working of the town(cid:146)s large textile
plants, with firms in the fruit and vegetable picking and packaging business experiencing the same
difficulties, particularly following the crisis in Yugoslavia.

Given the above situation in Naousa, will the Commission say:

1. whether the town can be included in the URBAN initiative, and

2. whether the regional programme for western Macedonia under the 3rd Community Support Frame-
work includes funding for measures for Naousa and, if so, what sum has been allocated? What was the
total amount of
funding for measures for Naousa from the regional programme for western
Macedonia under the 2nd Community Support Framework?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

In Annex II to its communication laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic
and social regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban
development (URBAN II) (1), the Commission fixed the indicative number of urban areas to be covered in
each Member State. Following a ministerial request, it increased the number for Greece from two to three.

To date, the Commission has officially received no URBAN II programmes from Greece.

The operational programme (OP) for central Macedonia during the period 2000-2006 includes substantial
finance for major assistance in the field of urban development. The share of appropriations which the
town of Naousa could enjoy is a matter for the Greek authorities.

During the 1994-1999 programming period, under the OP for central Macedonia, a total of € 58 million
was allocated to part-finance projects and measures to develop the prefecture of Imathia, which includes
Naousa; these will have a positive effect on the town.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4057/00

by Generoso Andria (PPE-DE), Umberto Scapagnini (PPE-DE)
and Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Agriculture in Capaccio-Paestum

(9 January 2001)

Capaccio-Paestum is an area in the gulf of Salerno subject to archaeological restrictions because of its great
archaeological riches (Doric temples, a necropolis etc.). The River Sele and other waterways make it
a particularly fertile area.

C 187 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Legislation rightly ensures that this immeasurably valuable heritage is protected, but does not take into
consideration the age-old activities of farmers in the area (rearing buffalo, growing vegetables, etc.).

Will the Commission therefore take action to ensure that the local authorities, while continuing to ensure
that the archaeological and landscape heritage is protected, adopt all measures necessary to allow the
farmers concerned to receive special authorisation to improve their holdings and to gain access to
concessions relating to social security contributions, tax and financing, as well as financial support from
the European Union?

In short, does the Commission intend to ensure that all those concerned benefit from equal opportunities
in comparison with other farmers who do not live in areas subject to constraints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2001)

The Commission considers that compliance with the legislation in force on protecting the archaeological
heritage, the landscape and the environment is a prerequisite for granting any public assistance in the
agricultural sector, whether it be purely national assistance or assistance part-financed at Community level
under the Structural Funds or the Rural Development Plan for the region concerned.

Taking action to ensure that the local authorities give farmers access to special permits for improving their
holdings and to concessions in the field of social security contributions, taxation and national funding is
not considered by the Commission to be a task which falls within its powers. If national aid were
introduced in this context, the Commission would be responsible for guaranteeing compliance with the
State aid rules under Articles 87 to 89 (former Articles 92 to 94) of the EC Treaty.

As regards assistance part-financed by the Community under the programmes referred to above, no
provision is made for specific rural development measures confined to this area in the Objective 1
Operational Programme (ROP) for the Campania region for the period 2000-2006, which was approved
by the Commission Decision of 8 August 2000.

However, it would be within the powers of the regional authorities implementing this assistance to lay
down specific conditions aimed at encouraging application of the measures provided for in the ROP in the
area subject
these conditions complied with the
to the abovementioned constraints, provided that
Community rules on the Structural Funds and rural development.

(2001/C 187 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/00

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Environmental rehabilitation work in Emilia Romagna (Italy)

Can the Commission provide information on the (cid:145)environmental rehabilitation(cid:146) work now completed at the
Mezzano sugar refinery ((cid:145)Vasche dello zuccherificio di Mezzano, cod. IT 4700012(cid:146)) (Ravenna, Italy), a site
which has been designated under the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) and Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2),
given that it was not carried out in full compliance with the recommendations on the protection of the
wildlife living in the area, and has completely altered the entire natural habitat?

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What action does it intend to take on the matter?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.