WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/01 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. EU funding for transport in the Peloponnese.
Date: 2001-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Greece, environmental impact, impact study, rail transport, road building, transport policy

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/75

Afghanistan. At this meeting, the Member States concerned attended as such and did not formally
represent the EU. However, this formal differentiation could not conceal the fact that the government
representatives were there by reason of their countries’ EU membership. This entailed discrimination
against other Member States and a de facto takeover of the functions of the Union institutions.

Has the Council taken any position on this deplorable action by certain of the EU Member States? Is the
Council aware that the ‘special’ character of the strategic alliance linking the UK with the US is not only
tending to substitute the EU’s relations with that country but is endangering the very independent
existence of the EU’s foreign policy?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

As it has already had occasion to explain, in its reply to Question H-0900/01 put by Anna Karamanou for
Question Time at the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg in December 2001, the Council
has never had to specifically discuss the meeting mentioned by the Honourable Member and so it is unable
to state any position on the matter.

Having been invited to the meeting, the Presidency for its part contacted the members of the European
Council who had not been invited to ask whether they thought it should attend. These contacts made clear
that there was broad encouragement for it to do so.

At the Presidency’s request, the Council’s subordinate bodies were briefed the next day on the substance of
the discussions by the Secretary-General/High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Solana, who had been
invited to take part alongside the Presidency.

The Council would point out that, following the guidelines issued by the European Council 4 which has
met to discuss this subject on two occasions 4 the Union has made every effort to give a coordinated
overall response to the 11 September attacks by adopting a detailed action plan against terrorism and by
unequivocally declaring its full support for the action taken against all aspects of terrorism and its total
solidarity with the United States. The European Council has also reaffirmed its firm determination to act in
concert in all circumstances.

(2002/C 160 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: EU funding for transport in the Peloponnese

It has been brought to our attention that roads are being built with EU funding in Argolid and Arcadia in
the Peloponnese, Greece, while no money is going to improve the railway which circles the region, which
is badly in need of improvement.

Please could you inform me: Under which programme are these roads being funded?

Is the Commission making any attempt to ensure that railways receive investment in parallel with road
development funded by the EU, in the Peloponnese and in Europe in general?

What is the reasoning, and what factors have been taken into account, behind decisions on transport
infrastructure development in the Peloponnese?

Has there been an Environmental Impact Assessment for EU-funded projects in the Peloponnese?

C 160 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

The Community support framework (CSF) for Greece during the 2000-2006 programming period defines
a development strategy which includes road, rail, ports and airports communications and sets priorities in
relation to the resources available. Further details on the intervention foreseen in this field are set out in
the Operational Programmes.

The Operational Programme for the region of Peloponnese provides for support for roads in Argolis and
Arcadia.

For Trans-European transport network (TEN) projects in Greece, some € 4 billion for roads and € 2 billion
for railways are foreseen for Greece during the programming period 2000-2006 to be financed by the
European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. A further € 0,2 billion from the EU under
the TEN budget line is foreseen for the co-financing of studies. These amounts are more than doubled by
the public and private national contributions and reflect the infrastructure needs of the Member State and
the capacity of its managing authorities to implement within the time available. As regards rail investment
in particular, a considerable effort
is being made by the Greek authorities to reinforce its project
management capacity.

The expected completion of these investment programmes by 2008 should ensure that the TEN for both
road and rail is broadly in place in Greece, in line with the transport strategy for the fifteen approved by
the Council of Ministers of the European Union.

The TEN priority for rail networks in the Peloponnese is the link from Patras to Corinth continuing
through Athens to Thessaloniki and up to the Bulgarian and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(Fyrom) borders. For this link, a Community co-financing of € 0,4 billion is foreseen. When this link is
complete and operational, the quality of service provided may justifiy further investment in subsidiary lines
elsewhere in the Peloponnese. However, this depends on detailed traffic forecasts for the region taking
account of factors such population density, levels of economic activity and topography. For large parts of
such regions, road transport can be the most sustainable solution at least in the medium-term.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member that any project subject to Community
in the Peloponnese as well as in the rest of the Community, must conform with the
co-financing,
including that concerning environmental protection, and is subject to a prior
Community legislation,
environmental impact assessment.

(2002/C 160 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3220/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Review of action taken in Afghanistan pursuant to Article 2(i) of the Council common position of

22 January 2001

Having regard to the Council common position of 22 January 2001 on Afghanistan (1);

having regard to Article 7 thereof, which states that the Commission intends to direct its action towards
achieving the objectives of the common position;

having regard to Article 2(i) thereof, under which, in order to support the United Nations peace efforts,
reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 203 A and B of 18 December 1998, the Union shall
‘continue contacts with the Afghan parties and prominent Afghan individuals to point to the [f]utility and
grave and unacceptable humanitarian consequences of the continued fighting, and urge an immediate
ceasefire and the negotiation of a political settlement under UN auspices, including the establishment of a
fully representative, broad-based government’;