WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/01 by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission. Objective 3 development programme.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Sweden, advance payment, aid system, company growth, financial aid, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 134 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The ExternE study considered the entire nuclear fuel cycle,
environmental pollution, radiological impacts on the general public and the risk of accidents.

including waste, radioactive emissions and

In the first instance, it is the Member States who are responsible for ensuring that environmental and other
external costs of nuclear energy, such as those resulting from authorised radioactive discharges to the
environment, waste disposal and security of installations are internalised. However, in general the costs of
storing and long term management/disposal of the spent fuel and waste from nuclear electricity production
are partly covered by a charge which is included in the price of the electricity. This includes, where
necessary, safe transport of the material from one site to another (2). The risk of accidents/radioactive
pollution is normally internalised in two ways. One way is the defence in depth of nuclear facilities that
reduces the risk of any accidental releases of radioactivity in Western reactor technologies. The other way
is through the adhesion of all Member States to the Paris Convention on Nuclear Liability that would come
into force in the event of any accident.

Building on the results of the ExternE study the Commission has recently launched a follow up research
project (NEWEXT - new elements for the assessment of external costs from energy technologies). In its
future analysis of this subject the Commission will review the internalisation of environmental costs with
regard to the prices of all sources of energy. In addition, the Commission announced in its Green Paper on
energy security that it will make a systematic inventory of state aid in the energy sector in order to avoid
distortion of competition. This inventory will of course include nuclear energy which, should no longer
benefit from aid.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2) Details of how the funds for covering the costs of radioactive waste management in individual Member States are
available in a report ‘Schemes for financing radioactive waste storage and disposal’ that was contracted by DG
Environment and published in October 1998 (EUR 18185).

(2002/C 134 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/01

by Anneli Hulthén (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Objective 3 development programme

The EU Objective 3 development programme in Sweden includes support which may be applied for by
various undertakings, organisations and public institutions to help them develop their activities. When EU
Objective 3 funds have been approved, receipts entered in the accounts have to be presented before any
funds may be paid out. However, small undertakings may find it impossible to hand over large sums of
money before they receive the support. The latter can be a crucial factor for small companies’ development
and livelihood.

The figures show that in Sweden between 80 and 90 % of this support is applied for by large companies.
The failure of small and medium-sized undertakings to apply is a clear result of the rule described above.

Enquiries into the procedures for paying support from the EU growth programme in other Member States
have revealed that only in Sweden do receipts have to be presented before the support can be paid. In the
other Member States an advance of one third of the support is granted to facilitate the start up of the
activities in question. The reason for this might be that other Member States have other interpretations of
how the EU contributions are to be paid.

Do the rules governing Objective 3 make such demands, or is this an interpretation on the part of the
Swedish authorities?

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/91

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The issue of paying advances to facilitate the start up of activities, financed under the Swedish Objective 3
programme,
is a national matter. These national advances are allowed under Community regulations,
although they cannot be submitted for reimbursement given that they do not correspond to expenditure
actually incurred and paid out.

National advances were not allowed in Sweden in the previous programming period, although they were,
in practice, in most other Member States. Instead promoters in Sweden could submit monthly claims.
During the present programming period, the Swedish Government is allowing, under certain conditions,
an advance payment of 10 % of the funds granted (maximum SEK 10 000) for small local projects by
non-governmental organisations or by social economy in order to facilitate their start-up of projects. The
Swedish European Social Fund (ESF) Council has proposed to the Swedish government to extend the
advance payments to small small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with staff under ten persons.

(2002/C 134 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 October 2001)

Subject: EU fisheries agreement with South Africa

For years the EU has been attempting to conclude a fisheries agreement with South Africa, but in spring
2001 the South Africans gave a flat refusal. The fisheries negotiations then collapsed. The trade agreement
with South Africa did however come into force in January 2000.

It might however be feared that South Africa’s refusal to allow in foreign fishing fleets might in the longer
term have implications for the major trade agreement between the EC and South Africa, which took four
years to negotiate. There is a link between the trade agreement and the wrecked fisheries negotiations.
Duty-free entry for South African fisheries products is directly linked to the outcome of the fisheries
negotiations. Nobody is saying it outright, but there is also a degree of pressure from the EC with regard to
wines and spirits, negotiations on which have yet to be concluded. Out of the Member States only Sweden
and the Netherlands had ratified the trade agreement by May 2001. These two countries have no interests
in the fisheries or wine industries. The other Member States seem to be pursuing a wait-and-see policy. In
May 2001 no country had yet threatened to back out from the trade agreement, but the southern
European countries with the most negative views include those with the largest fishing fleets.

What is the Council doing to encourage ratification of the trade agreement by the Member States? Can it
guarantee that no linkage is made between the failure of the fisheries negotiations and the fact that the
trade agreement with South Africa has not been ratified by all Member States?

Reply

(12 February 2002)

1.
The negotiations for the conclusion of a Fisheries Agreement were suspended in March 2001 when
South Africa, in addition to cooperation in a number of fishery-related areas, refused to include access to
South African fishery resources for European vessels. This position was seen as contrary to the mutual
understanding reached at a technical meeting held in Cape Town in December 2000 and, furthermore, did
not meet the objectives enumerated in the mandate adopted by the Council in September 1995. The
Community is ready to resume the negotiations; however, this would require mutual understanding on
access to the fishery resources in the South African exclusive economic zone (EEZ).