WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/01 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. European aid for development of industrial sites.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, competition law, financial aid, location of industry, regional development

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2002/C 277 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3188/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: European aid for development of industrial sites

In paragraphs 17 and 18 of Parliament’s resolution of 16 January 2001 on Court of Auditors’ special
report No 7/99 concerning the development of industrial sites, the Commission was asked to encourage
regional coordination between the various actors to avoid competition being created between promoters,
to promote the simplification of national and local purchasing procedures and to investigate to what
extent, and how soon, the Commission can phase out its activities relating to industrial sites, observing the
subsidiarity principle.

Has the Commission already taken action on these three requests?

If so, how and to what extent?

If not, when and how does the Commission plan to act?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission has already expressed its view before the Parliament that it does not consider measures to
avoid competition between potential promoters of industrial sites to be appropriate per se. Competition is
an essential element of the single market and plays an important role as a motor in regional and local
business development.

As far as financial support for actions in this field are concerned, the frame of reference is that of
Regulation (EC) 1783/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the ERDF (1). This
foresees the granting of support for the provision of infrastructure on a scale appropriate to local and
the economic development programmes
in the context of
employment development
supported by the Structural Funds during the period 2000-2006.

(Article 2(1)(c))

In accordance with the decentralised management of these programmes, the selection of individual projects
such as those concerning the development of industrial sites, is a matter for the designated authorities in
the Member States.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the data for Objective 1 suggest that around 1 % of total
Structural Funds expenditure is earmarked for actions relating to business parks and business incubators,
while a further 2,7 % is earmarked for the refurbishing and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites

C 277 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

and for urban areas. For Objective 2, the figures are somewhat higher, namely 6,8 % for business parks and
incubators and 7 % for refurbishing and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites and for urban areas.
The figures are illustrative only since they cover activities other than the development of industrial sites.

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

(2002/C 277 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3357/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Afghanistan and humanitarian aid from the European Union

As part of its reply to my question (H-0856/01 (1)) regarding the dissuasion of Afghan farmers from
producing and selling opium, the Council refers me to the Commission. I would like information on the
priorities set by the Commission (ECHO) for the use of immediate humanitarian aid to tackle urgent needs
(€ 25 million) and, secondly, for the long-term utilisation of the total amount of € 320 million which has
already been allocated to the country.

Within the framework of this humanitarian aid and the development and reconstruction plan for the
country, does the Commission intend to promote a policy of dissuading farmers from reverting to growing
opium and producers from selling the stocks that they still have? If so, how does it intend to achieve this?

(1) Written answer of 14.11.2001.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

After the United States, the Commission has, through the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), been the main
source of humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, providing € 150 million since 1993. When that sum is added
to food aid and assistance for Afghan refugees from other Commission departments,
the
Directorate-General for Development (DG DEV), the EuropeAid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) and the
Directorate-General for External Relations (DG RELEX), the EU has allocated over € 430 million for the
people of Afghanistan since 1991.

to wit

In 2001 ECHO mobilised € 54,7 million. Food aid (€ 28 million), aid for displaced persons in neighbouring
countries (€ 22,5 million) and aid for mine-clearance (about € 10 million) took Commission-managed aid
for the Afghan people in 2001 to € 116 million. If the Member States’ aid is added to this figure, EU aid in
2001 totalled more than € 320 million.

Humanitarian aid allocated to Afghanistan by the Commission (through ECHO) prior to 11 September
2001 amounted to € 23,4 million, most of it targeted on two vulnerable groups:

E People displaced by drought or fighting received help in the form of water-supply and sanitation

programmes, the distribution of basic necessities and medical feeding programmes.

E Drought-hit communities received food.

Projects were slowed down by the departure of expatriate staff in the wake of the events of 11 September
2001. However, with the exception of mine-clearance projects, activities continued thanks to the skills and
commitment of Afghan local staff.