WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Year of Languages and mobility amongst language teachers.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, European cultural event, education policy, foreign language, labour mobility, language teaching, teacher training

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/151

(2001/C 261 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: The Year of Languages and mobility amongst language teachers

Forty-three projects (cid:129) to which the Commission will be contributing funding in the region of € 17 million
(cid:129) have been selected to mark the Year of Languages organised by the European Union in 2001.

There is a feeling that preference ought to be given to those projects geared towards mobility amongst
language teachers, so as to enable the latter to move to other Community Member States and pursue the
different approaches to language teaching.

Will the Commission say which of the selected projects are geared towards facilitating mobility amongst
language teachers across the European Union, and in what way it intends to encourage an increase in both
the number of language teachers and their mobility, so as to enable them to teach languages anywhere in
the Community?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

During the first selection round for projects financed under the European Year of Languages 2001, forty-
three projects were selected, with a total grant funding of € 1,7 million (and not 17 million) Euros. More
projects will be funded under the second selection round.

The objectives of the European Year of Languages are to raise awareness of the richness of linguistic
diversity, to encourage multilingualism and life long learning of languages and to disseminate information
on this field. These objectives are reflected in the areas of action for proposals, which are laid down in the
Call for Proposals for the European Year (1). Moreover, the purpose of the funding available under the
European Year of languages is to complement, and not to duplicate, funding available under other actions
and programmes. It would therefore not have been appropriate to fund teacher mobility, which is already
funded in other ways.

In particular, since 1990, through the Lingua and Socrates programmes, the Commission has invested
significant amounts in the training and mobility of teachers of a foreign language. It has done this in three
main ways:

(cid:129) by encouraging teacher training institutions to work in partnership across Europe to produce quality
teacher training materials and courses; since 1991, almost € 22 million has been spent to co-fund
these projects;

(cid:129) by giving grants to individual teachers to enable them to follow an in-service training course abroad;
between 1991 and 1999, a total of 53 600 foreign language teachers received an average grant of
€ 1 000 each; and

(cid:129) by funding assistantships abroad for future teachers of a foreign language; between 1996 and 1999,
€ 13,2 million was allocated to this action and over 2 800 future foreign language teachers undertook
Lingua Assistantships.

Further information is available in all eleven Community languages on the Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)Learning
Languages(cid:146) web site at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/es/index.html

In addition, the Leonardo da Vinci Programme supports exchanges of one to six weeks between the
business sector on the one hand, and language vocational training establishments on the other, for the
benefit of language trainers and mentors.

C 261 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

The Socrates programme(cid:146)s Arion action enables education professionals to travel abroad to study other
countries(cid:146) educational systems and approaches to common issues. In 2000-2001, 15 Arion study visits
addressing some 180 education specialists and decision makers were scheduled. A similar number of
events will take place in 2001-2002.

(1) DG EAC 66/00.

(2001/C 261 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0584/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Aquaculture developments at Lough Swilly, Co Donegal, an SAC and an SPA, and at Kenmare Bay,

Co. Kerry, an SAC

Referring to complaints P20/4543 and 2000/5032, SG(2000) A/13568 concerning the potential negative
environmental impacts arising from aquaculture expansions within the Lough Swilly and Kenmare Bay
areas protected under EU law: Habitats (92/43 (1)) and Wild Birds (79/409 (2)) Directives. Does the
Commission consider such developments in protected areas to be in breach of the Habitats and Wild
Birds Directives?

What has the Commission done to rectify the situation or what does it intend to do?

Ireland has been given substantial EU structural funds to expand its aquaculture/fisheries industry, and
applicants can also avail themselves of an EU aquaculture grants scheme. Could the Commission state how
much EU money has been earmarked for developments at Lough Swilly and in the Kenmare Bay area?

Does the Commission intend to put pressure on and/or suspend payments relating to these developments?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(30 March 2001)

Aquaculture per se is not prohibited within Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds or within areas proposed for protection under Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. However,
these Directives set out a number of procedural and other safeguards which must be respected where
aquaculture has or is likely to have significant effects.

The Commission has received detailed information from complainants in relation to aquaculture expansion
in Lough Swilly, and this information is currently under consideration. Pending the conclusion of the
Commission(cid:146)s consideration, it would be premature to outline what action the Commission intends to take.

As regards Kenmare Bay,
the Commission has recently requested the complainant to furnish more
information under a standard request for supplementary information employed in relation to complaints
concerning threats to SPAs and sites proposed under Directive 92/43/EEC. The response of the complai-
nant is awaited.