WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Interreg III — Alpine area.
Date: 2001-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Alpine Region, EU initiative, co-financing, eligibility criteria, regional development

C 160 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

In the Athens basin there are hundreds of hectares of land which are not being used and are intended to
provide a green lung for the inhabitants. However,
involve the
construction of gigantic concrete sports complexes and other buildings in the last remaining open spaces
in Athens and Piraeus. The Faliriko Bay area is in danger of being turned into a concrete sprawl as a result
of the enormous projected sports facilities, and the same applies to the entire area from Pasalimani to
Anavissos, where plans are being made to build cinemas, amusement centres, hotels and shops literally
next to the sea.

the projected Olympic Games will

What view does the Commission take of this disheartening situation in the Athens basin? What are the per
capita areas of green space in other EU capitals? Has the Commission brought the problem to the attention
of the Greek Government and if so, how, in order to make it understand that to place any further areas of
Athens under concrete will threaten the already unsatisfactory quality of life of
its inhabitants and
jeopardise the extremely vulnerable ecological equilibrium of the Greek capital? What, if any, was the
reaction of the Greek authorities?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

In the light of the subsidiarity principle, Urban Planning issues lie within the competence of the Member
States (often further delegated to local levels). Thus, the work of the Commission in the field of Urban
planning focuses on assisting local/national authorities with, for example, development of monitoring tools
facilitating the exchange of experiences and good practices between Municipalities and Cities within the
Union. In line with the above, the Commission has not established recommended percentages of green
areas, etc.

However, all major projects (including Cohesion Fund and Structural Funds projects) are subject to an
obligation to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under Community law. This also
applies to the projects linked to the Olympic Games in Athens. Such an Assessment would need to assure
that the projects are in line with the protection measures established.

Furthermore, there is no specific Cohesion Fund or Structural Funds co-financing programme for the
creation of green areas in Athens. However, actions relating to this could be proposed in the framework of
the Attica and Environment operational programmes and, with certain conditions and restrictions, under
the Cohesion Fund.

(2002/C 160 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Interreg III 5 Alpine area

Operational proposals and plans for action to be taken under the Interreg IIIB 5 Alpine area Community
initiative are currently being drawn up. During a meeting held in Strasbourg in early October, requests for
the funding also to be used in non-mountainous parts of the Alpine area were put to the Commission.

The inhabitants of mountain areas could well find this difficult to understand, given that they were hoping
that the available resources would be focused on genuine alpine areas rather than towns in valleys or
subalpine areas, which are eligible for other funding.

What are the Commission’s views on this matter?

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/101

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

On 19 December 2001 the Commission adopted the Alpine Area programme under
the
Interreg III Community Initiative (strand B). It provides Community part-financing (€ 59,7 million) for
transnational cooperation between Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Switzer-
land (1).

The four cooperation priorities established in partnership with the national and regional authorities
involved in the programme are:

5 promotion of the Alpine area (within the wider framework of polycentric spatial development of the

Community) as competitive and attractive on two fronts: economy and quality of life;

5 development of sustainable transport systems focused on efficiency, intermodality and accessibility;

5 prudent management of the natural and cultural heritage; environmental promotion and prevention of

natural disasters;

5 technical assistance.

The allotted funds may be used throughout the cooperation zone defined in the programme for operations
approved by the national and regional authorities acting through a management committee that satisfy the
programme terms. Under the Interreg III guidelines (2) no part of the cooperation zone, whether or not
mountainous, may be excluded from eligibility for part-financing. In any case one of the benefits of such a
programme is the integration and territorial cohesion it promotes of mountain areas and the surrounding
valleys and plains.

(1) COM(2001)4017.
(2) Commission communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 setting guidelines for a Community Initiative
concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the
European territory 5 Interreg III, OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(2002/C 160 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/01

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Chimpanzee testing at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands

The Commission has consistently stated that ‘All research in Europe involving the use of animals is subject
to Council Directive 86/609/EEC’ (1) (Answer to Written Question P-1813/01 (2), among others). In that
document, recommendations for the care of animals on which experiments have been discontinued seems
to be limited to Article 9 which states that, at the end of an experiment, a decision should be made on
‘whether the animal should be kept alive or killed by humane method, subject to the condition that it shall
not be kept alive if … it is likely to remain in lasting pain or distress’. The Council Directive goes on to
insist that, after experiments have ended, animals must continue to be kept in living conditions which
satisfy the requirements of Article 5.

In the case of the chimpanzee colony at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in the Netherlands, some
newspaper reports have suggested that up to 46 chimpanzees have been sent to ‘zoos in Europe and
China’, where there is a chance they may be sent for further experimentation or breeding. If this is indeed
the case, what steps does the Commission consider that the competent authority in the Netherlands should
take in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Articles 5 and 9 of Council Directive
86/609/EEC once the animals go to their new locations in Europe or in non-member states?

Does the Commission consider that there is any need to extend the scope of that Directive to cover the
welfare of animals who have been retired from experimentation in Europe?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 111.