WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/01 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission. Cohesion policy and outermost regions.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, less-favoured region, peripheral region

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/83

What steps has the Council been taking or will it take to persuade the Chinese authorities to desist from
their policy of provocation and respect religious freedom? Furthermore, does not the Council consider it
embarrassing to say the least that Union nationals should be aiding and abetting the brutally repressive
policy which the Beijing regime is inflicting on the Tibetan people and the adherents of the above three
religions? What will it do to make the climbers abandon their plan?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council has neither been informed of nor has it discussed the expedition referred to by the
Honourable Member.

(2002/C 40 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Cohesion policy and outermost regions

(14 June 2001)

The economic and social cohesion policy debate is now well under way. Enlargement, a prospect looming
very close on the horizon, will radically alter cohesion policy, inevitably entailing consequences for the
Union(cid:146)s most vulnerable regions, not least the outermost regions.

In practical terms, a Europe of 27 will be 30 % larger than at present but only 5 % richer, producing a new
equation that will result in far-reaching changes in the next programming period. There is consequently
reason to fear that, owing to the poverty of some areas, the difficulties of others will be artificially lost to
sight. The new methods of calculation will therefore have to be geared to the socio-economic realities in
the Union.

In its document on European unity, solidarity among peoples, and territorial diversity the Commission
stated that it had begun to consider how the needs of the outermost regions might be covered in future
cohesion policy.

1.

Has the Commission moved further forward in its thinking on this point?

Does not Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, imply that all the

2.
outermost regions should remain within the scope of Objective 1 for the future programming period?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

As the Honourable Member notes, when the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion was
published the Commission launched a wide-ranging consultation process on the future of the regional and
structural policy of the Union embracing the authorities of the Member States, local authorities and the
representatives of civil society to enable it to draw up guidelines for its future proposals between now and
2004. The first cohesion forum was organised in Brussels on 21 and 22 May.

With regard to preserving the eligibility of all the outermost regions for Objective 1 during the next
programming period, the conclusions of the second report recognise that (cid:145)on the latest data available
(1998), the application of a threshold of 75 % GDP per head in a Union of 27 Member States would
reduce the population in the present EU 15 eligible for Objective 1 assistance by more than half.(cid:146) The
second report then presents four options: application of the present threshold of 75 %; application of the
current threshold of 75 % with temporary support for the (cid:145)outgoing regions(cid:146) at levels which would increase
the closer their GDP was to the 75 % threshold; the setting of a threshold higher than 75 % so as to reduce
or even eliminate the automatic effect of excluding EU 15 regions; the fixing of two thresholds of
eligibility, one for the EU 15 regions and one for the candidate countries.

C 40 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

This is the general background to consultations on the outermost regions in the light of their specific
situation under Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty: as that Article envisages, this will cover in particular access
by these regions to the Structural Funds. With this in mind, Mr Barnier engaged in initial discussions with
the Presidents of the seven outermost regions last May on RØunion. A further meeting should be held in
the autumn.

It would be premature at this stage to draw up the conclusions of a debate which is still continuing. The
Commission can, however, assure the Honourable Member that
intends to take full account of
Article 299(2).

it

(2002/C 40 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/01

by Paolo Costa (ELDR), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Francesco Rutelli (ELDR),
Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR), Patrick Cox (ELDR), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE),
Giovanni Procacci (ELDR), Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR), Luciano Caveri (ELDR),
Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR), Jules Maaten (ELDR), Astrid Thors (ELDR),
Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Acquisition by ElectricitØ de France (EDF) of a 3,9 % stake in Montedison

ElectricitØ de France (EDF), the state-owned electrical energy monopoly in France, has announced that it
has acquired a 3,9 % stake in Montedison, an industrial holding that controls Edison-Sondel, the main
private Italian operator in the energy (electricity and gas) sector.

In contrast with France, where electricity production and the electrical energy market continue to be fully
controlled by EDF, a situation which has led the Commission to take formal steps, Italy has embarked on a
process of liberalising the gas and electricity market, in full compliance with Community directives.

The EDF(cid:146)s move against Montedison (cid:129) which follows other controversial attempts to expand its activities,
particularly in Spain (cid:129) raises serious general questions concerning the differences in the extent to which
the various national energy markets have been opened up, and their respective timetables for doing so.

An operator such as EDF, whose revenues are absolutely secure due to the fact that it operates a
monopoly, is 100 % publicly owned and is not quoted on the stock exchange, is able to penetrate other
markets on a completely unreciprocal basis.

In view of the foregoing, what position does the Commission intend to adopt, and what measures does it
intend to take, to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market, given that free competition and
non-discrimination between undertakings are an essential prerequisite for the latter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

The Commission, in its meeting of 20 June 2001, had the opportunity to reiterate the need for rapid
adoption by the Council and the Parliament of the Commission(cid:146)s March 2001 proposals to liberalise fully
Community energy markets (all non-domestic electricity open to competition by 1 January 2003, non
domestic gas open to competition by 1 January 2004 and all customers, including domestic, open to
competition by 1 January 2005). During its meeting, the Commission underlined that the most effective
and appropriate method of redrawing the market opening imbalance and distorsion of competition that
result is the rapid adoption of this package.

The Commission agreed that to address distortions of competition and inequalities in the short term before
adoption of the further liberalisation proposals it would:

(cid:129) monitor Member States to ensure timely and proper implementation of the existing electricity and gas

liberalisation Directives;