WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Administrative authorities for the operational programmes in Greece.
Date: 2001-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, management, operational programme, project management

C 147 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

to the region’s special autonomous status,

including (approximately a year ago) measures
pursuant
applicable to the agriculture sector. An appropriate draft
law was forwarded to the Commission’s
Directorate-General for Agriculture, since when a number of requests for documents and information have
been received via Italy’s permanent representation, such as a request for maps of the flooded areas and of
sediment measurements # almost as though the flood was suspected of being a fabrication. Reading the
correspondence provokes feelings of bewilderment and frustration, since the Commission’s requests seem
to lack an awareness of the fact that any compensation to be paid to farmers in respect of flood damage
must necessarily be made available promptly. It seems incredible that the request has recently been
transferred to the register of unnotified aid because the Italian Government’s Civil Defence Order No. 3090
of 2000 was not notified to Brussels. It is quite obvious from a reading of the draft regional law that there
is no link between it and the Order.

Are the delays which have built up therefore justifiable? Despite what it says in the Treaties, should
priority not be given to natural disasters? Should an entirely transparent emergency procedure not be
devised as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties experienced in Valle d’Aosta following the flooding that
occurred on 13 October 2000.

As the Honourable Member says, Italy notified measures proposed by the regional authorities for granting
compensation to farmers. However, the Commission has established, from the additional
information
about the plan provided by the Italian authorities, that aid had been granted to the flood victims already
and that its main aim was to give a fresh boost to productive activities, in other words, to farming as well
as other activities.

In view of the fact that the Order introducing the aid has not been notified and since the Commission is
required to verify whether the aid granted to the farmers concerned did not represent overcompensation
for the damage suffered, the Commission was obliged to transfer the file comprising the whole range of
aids to the register of unnotified aids.

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that under Article 13(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (1), the two-month period for the examination of State aids which have been notified does not apply
where an aid has not been notified.

That being so, the Commission can provide assurances that the matter of Valle d’Aosta will be dealt with
at the earliest opportunity.

On the particular issue of the sediment measurements referred to in the question, the Commission did not
request documents of this kind. As one of the measures contemplated by the regional authorities following
the flooding was likely to create environmental problems by increasing the density of livestock on certain
types of land, the Commission simply asked for an assessment of the impact the presence of such animals
would have on the land in question.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Administrative authorities for the operational programmes in Greece

Could the Commission state whether it is satisfied with the way in which the administrative authorities for
the Third CSF operational programmes in Greece are working? If not, which administrative authorities
present problems and why? Has it made any comments on this subject to the Greek authorities?

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/163

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission has closely followed the start up in Greece of the new organisation and procedures
related to the Community support framework (CSF) for the 2000-2006 programming period.

Since their constitution in March 2001, the managing authorities responsible for the sector and regional
programmes have had to meet very demanding deadlines arising from the new procedures, and also to
ensure understanding and acceptance of these new methods of work in the wider Greek administration.
The Commission is generally satisfied with the initial results.

The managing authority for the CSF itself was formally constituted by the end of November 2001. The
recruitment process of the full staff complement for all managing authorities is in progress and should be
completed by the end of January 2002.

At this stage, it is too early to form a firm judgement concerning the capabilities of individual managing
authorities. However, it was agreed at the recent annual meeting (22 and 23 November 2001) between the
Commission and the Greek administration, that the management and organisation unit will seek to
improve its capacity to offer technical assistance and support where weaknesses become evident.

For that reason, the Commission has decided to organise a seminar in March 2002 on the assessment and
management of risk, concerning in particular the relationships between the managing authorities, the final
beneficiaries and intermediary organisations involved in programme implementation. This should clarify
the conditions under which projects can be confidently selected and the nature of the monitoring and
controls which it is the duty of the managing authorities to carry out.

(2002/C 147 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3383/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Work in the Marathon-Schinias area in connection with the Olympic Games

in reply to my previous question on this point

(E-1073/01 (1)), Commissioner
On 22 June 2001,
Wallström said that the Commission had carried out an on-the-spot investigation in the Marathon-Schinias
area, in Greece, from which it had garnered information. She also said, in her reply, that ‘information
gathered is currently under evaluation in order for the Commission to decide on the follow-up to be given
to this matter’.

Can the Commission state whether it has duly evaluated this information and what decision it has taken? Is
it aware that work for the Olympic Games has already begun and that any damage caused to this historic
site is irreversible?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 163.

Reply given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

In dealing with the case of the Olympic rowing and canoeing centre at Schinias/Marathon in Greece, the
Commission’s aim is a) to provide an adequate protection status for the site through its inclusion in the
European ecological network Natura 2000 established under the ‘Habitats’ directive 92/43/EEC (1), and b)
to ensure that the implementation of this Olympic facility and the future management of the area will be
done in a manner which will protect and restore the site’s wildlife value.

Since the Commission’s reply to the previous related written question E-1073/01 by the Honourable
Member, the Greek authorities submitted additional relevant documentation and further contacts with
them have been undertaken. This has resulted in an improvement to the design of the project so that
habitat loss is minimised and the restoration potential of the area is increased. Furthermore, progress has
been made towards the establishment of the national park.