WRITTEN QUESTION E-2312/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission. Non-remote island regions.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid system, economic and social cohesion, economic development, island region, less-favoured region, peripheral region

C 93 E/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

On 6 June 2001, the Commission has approved the ‘livestock welfare disposal scheme’, with an estimated
budget of £ 6 million per week. This scheme is designed to address the animal welfare problems arising
from the movement restrictions put in place to control foot-and-mouth disease. The scheme includes
payments towards the costs of transporting, slaugther, rendering,
incinerating, disposal of carcasses,
veterinary costs, as well as compensation to producers for the animals disposed of.

In addition to that, the Commission is currently examining other state aid schemes, including amendments
to the farm business advice scheme and the agriculture development scheme 2001, as well as the Scottish
Red Meat Campaign. All contain measures destined to help farmers cope with the problems created by
foot-and-mouth disease.

As far as the non-agricultural sector is concerned, the British government may be giving support falling
under the definition of ‘de minimis’ aid as provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of
12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1). Such aid
would not have to be notified to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

(2002/C 93 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2308/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 July 2001)

Subject: Health effects of sulphites in wine

Is the Commission aware of the medical evidence to suggest that high amounts of sulphites in wine may
produce adverse reactions in some drinkers, particularly in a proportion of asthmatics?

Does it consider that wine labelling should be introduced on health grounds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2001)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission’s answer to written question E-2200/01 from
Mr Davies (1).

(1) See page 78.

(2002/C 93 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2312/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Non-remote island regions

The EU has more than 26 island regions with over 14 million inhabitants. Such regions cover 3.5 % of the
surface area of the EU and are home to 3.5 % of the Union’s population. These island regions experience
various disadvantages related to the fact that they do not form part of mainland Europe.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/105

Specifically, their problems can be summed up as follows:

1.

2.

the cost of transport, which results in higher prices and a loss of competitivity for island-based firms,

the implementation of the common agricultural policy, which is leading to the disappearance of the
agricultural sector as a result of the ownership structure of the land and the fact that it is not possible
to promote large areas of intensive farming, which results in declining profitability for agriculture in
general and farmers in particular,

3.

the lack of natural resources such as land, water, energy, etc.

The Commission and Parliament recently adopted new measures (1) for the outermost regions and islands
to compensate for the specific disadvantages such areas face.

However, as the Commission has acknowledged, those island regions which are not among the most
remote, such as the Balearic Islands, an Objective 2 area, receive no specific help to compensate for their
island status, although, like other non-island European regions, they do receive funding under the usual
Community funds, such as the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF, Leader+, etc.

Is the Commission aware that European island regions that are not among the most outlying are also at a
disadvantage because of their island status? Does the Commission intend to adopt compensatory measures
for these non-remote island regions?

If not, what steps can such island regions take to ensure that the regulations governing the Structural
Funds take account of their specific disadvantages? Who is responsible for taking this political decision?
Within whose remit does this matter fall?

(1) COM(2000) 774 E OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of the problems of the island regions and would point out that 95 % of their
population is eligible under either Objective 1 or Objective 2 of the Structural Funds. Moreover, as it stated
in its reply to Written Question E-2303/01 (1), the Commission has launched a study on their situation.
This will include creation of a database on the island regions and an objective diagnosis of the situation,
including comparative rating and an evaluation of the problems generated by their island nature and of
their specific needs. The actions and the policies developed by the Member States and by the Union in
order to offset any shortcomings in development caused by insularity will also be examined.

The first results of this study, which will
Commission hopes to launch a debate once these results are made public.

last one year, are expected in the first half of 2002. The

There can therefore be no doubt of the Commission’s concern for islands, a problem which it intends to
approach in the broader context of the areas with natural and geographical handicaps, such as mountain
and depopulated areas. These areas with handicaps constitute one of six territorial priorities for the future
of the cohesion policy, as included in the conclusions of the second report on economic and social
cohesion.

To this end, the Commission intends to organise during the first half of 2002 seminars on each priority
included in the second report,
including the areas with handicaps. This will provide an occasion to
determine which measures for these territories can add a high level of value and what is the most
appropriate level (Community, national, regional) for their implementation.

This debate and the results of the above-mentioned study will be useful and necessary for the preparation
of the third report on economic and social cohesion planned for the beginning of 2004.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 148.