WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Programme execution and assistance for border regions.
Date: 2001-11-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EU initiative, aid programme, cross-border cooperation, decentralisation, eligible region, pre-accession aid, project management, regional aid

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/89

The Commission took part in Union’s Troika visits to Kandahar and Faisabad to explain the terms of the
Common Position to the warring factions (Articles 2, 3, 6).

A Commission expert took part in the April 2001 United Nations Drug Control programme (UNDCP) fact
finding mission to Afghanistan to assess the degree of compliance with the Taliban edict forbidding opium
poppy cultivation (Article 5), and in the preparation of the resulting mission report.

However, no action to prevent poppy cultivation or drug trafficking was financed in Afghanistan by the
the Community finances several actions to prevent opium/heroin
Community. On the other hand,
trafficking from Afghanistan to the Union.

in the first nine months of 2001,

Finally,
through the European Community’s
Humanitarian (ECHO), committed € 22,5 million of humanitarian aid funds to support emergency actions
by United Nations (UN) aid agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) inside Afghanistan and
on behalf of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran (Article 4). Actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran
committed under the Commission’s year 2000 budget for Aid to Uprooted People were implemented
during 2001. These actions amounted to € 16,6 million (Article 4).

the Commission,

Actions by ECHO, by the Aid to Uprooted People budget and the Community’s food aid budget have
continued post-September 11 and indeed have accelerated. The total for these three budgets for 2001 is
now in excess of € 100 million (of which ECHO € 50 million, Food Aid € 28,5 million, Aid to Uprooted
People € 22,5 million).

The Commission plays an active role in the Afghan Support Group and the Afghan Forum, international
bodies which co-ordinate donor community activities relating to Afghanistan and the refugee populations
in neighbouring countries, in the Horizontal Drugs Group of the Council and in the Dublin Group which
co-ordinates efforts to eradicate trafficking in illicit drugs.

(1) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001, as amended OJ L 289, 6.11.2001.

(2002/C 160 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Programme execution and assistance for border regions

Michel Barnier, Commissioner responsible for regional policy, made a statement on 9 October 2001 to the
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on the implementation of programmes for border
regions. Among other things, he said that within the framework of assistance for Objective 1 regions the
Commission had already approved 112 out of 114 programmes. Interreg had proved very successful and
103 of the 156 eligible regions had already applied this year. He went on to discuss the ISPA and said that
pre-accession aid would not be decentralised this year as the candidate countries were not yet ready.

In connection with this statement, can the Commission indicate:

1.

Exactly which programmes are involved in the case of Objective 1 assistance? What
framework has been established for which programmes from which regions (a detailed list
requested)?

financial
is

2. How many of the 103 applications submitted so far for Interreg come from Austria?

3. Which applications have so far been approved under Interreg and how much money has the Union

disbursed for individual projects (a detailed list is requested)?

4. When does the Commission expect to decentralise the ISPA and exactly what assistance will it be

providing to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for decentralising the ISPA?

C 160 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat the
1.
list of the 113 programmes co-financed under Objective 1 for the 2000-2006 programming period as well
as the relevant amounts.

The 156 eligible regions mentioned by the Honourable Member referred to the Innovative actions

2.
and not to the Interreg Community initiative.

All Interreg programmes are prepared, by definition, by more than one Member State, although a Member
State can submit the programme proposal on behalf of all the Member States involved. All Interreg
programmes involving Austria have been submitted. The following programmes have been approved
under the cross-border strand of Interreg III.

Programme

Austria/Czech Republic

Austria/Slovak Republic

Austria/Hungary

Austria/Slovenia

Austria/Germany (Bavaria)

Austria/Italy

Austria/Germany/Switzerland (Bodensee/Hochrhein/Alpenrhein)

(1) Contribution for both Member States.

(€ million)

Community
contribution

25,9

26,3

30,8

27,3

47,3

25,9 (1)

17,5 (1)

The following programmes involving Austria were approved at the end of the year 2001 under the
transnational strand of Interreg III:

Alpine Space

Programme

CADSES (Central Adriatic Danubian South Eastern European Space)

(1) Contribution for Austria, Germany, Italy and France.
(2) Contribution for Austria, Germany, Italy and Greece.

(€ million)

Community
contribution

59,7 (1)

128,7 (2)

Finally, under the inter-regional co-operation strand of Interreg III, Austria is participating in the East Zone
programme, which has a Community contribution of € 60 million, along with Germany, Italy and Greece.

The complete list of the programmes adopted under Interreg as well as the related budgets for the
3.
2000-2006 programming period are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s
Secretariat.

The legal framework for decentralisation is set up by Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/
4.
99 of 21 June 1999 on co-ordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession
strategy (1). There are certain pre-condition for the decentralisation of the Instrument for Structural Policies
for Pre-Accession (ISPA) resources, structures and systems for the management of Community assistance
and effective internal controls. These include an independent audit function and effective accounting and
financial reporting systems meeting international audit standards. Central government’s financial control
over the implementing agencies must also be ensured. The target is to move from the ex-ante approval of
projects to an ex-post control. The decentralisation of the ex-ante approval requires a Commission decision
based on a detailed country-by-country screening of project management capacity and financial control
procedures. Concerning invitations to tender, appraisal, evaluation of tenders, the award of contracts and
the implementation of public procurement directives.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/91

Decentralisation may not be possible in all ten candidate countries benefitting from ISPA at the same time.
The Commission has encouraged the use of the Technical Assistance (TA) funds under ISPA to promote
the reform of management and control functions in preparation for decentralisation. TA projects are
underway in a number of candidate countries, and the objective is to put
in place an extended
implementation system in the course of 2002 in a number of countries and for sectors (subject to progress
in the different sectors E transport and environment E it is conceivable that the ex-ante waiver is not
granted to both sectors at the same time).

For some aspects of this exercise the candidate countries can also rely on TA already provided through
PHARE and Sigma.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 160 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/01

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Self-determination

Will the Council please confirm its support for the principles of self-determination of peoples, particularly
with regard to the British territory of Gibraltar.

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the United Kingdom and Spain to find an
agreed solution for Gibraltar in accordance with international law and the interests of the Parties involved.

The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the United Kingdom and the Spanish
Permanent Representatives to the European Union informed the Council in a letter dated 3 September
2001 of the meeting in London on 26 July 2001 of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the two countries. At
that meeting the Ministers agreed to restart talks on Gibraltar in the context of the Brussels Declaration
included in the joint communiqué of 27 November 1984.

(2002/C 160 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3281/01

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Council

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Council common position with regard to Cuba

Under Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union concerning relations between the European Parliament
and the Council as regards foreign policy, it would be very useful to know what the Council’s opinion is
regarding the common position on Cuba which was adopted in 1996 (1). What chance is there that the
common position might be amended following the emergence of a new world order and in pursuit of
international cohesion, an objective which should be a hallmark of the European Union’s foreign policy?

(1) OJ L 322, 12.12.1996, p. 1.