WRITTEN QUESTION P-3646/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Budget line B7-6000.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budget, cooperation policy, developing countries, non-governmental organisation

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/101

In view of the above can the Commission say whether it intends to reply to the Lazio region, and if so,
when?

Does the Commission not consider that financial aid should be granted in the amount requested, as held
by the administrative court, with a view to helping regional agricultural development to become a genuine
reality?

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997, p. 22.
(2) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Honourable Members’ question relates to the activity of Arsial, the regional agency for agricultural
development and innovation in Lazio (Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l’Innovazione nell’Agricoltura
del Lazio) and the way it applies Council Regulation (EC) No 951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the
processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (1) and the selection criteria for investments
for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products set out by
the Commission in Decision 94/173/EC of 22 March 1994 (2).

The Monte Porzio Catone wine cooperative applied for public financing under those provisions.

When assessing the application, Arsial deducted the value of a decommissioned production building from
the overall financing.

On 15 February 2001 the wine cooperative brought the matter before the Lazio regional administrative
court, which annulled Arsial’s decision.

The letter of 30 December 1999 (reference 13304) which the Honourable Members claim Arsial sent the
Commission has never been received by the latter.

It should be stressed that the way aid part-financed by the Community is used for the abovementioned
programmes is the responsibility of the Italian regional and local authorities.

As a consequence, any appeals against administrative decisions concerning the management of part-
financed aid must be brought before the courts in the Member State.

In cases as provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty, the Italian court concerned could request a ruling
the provisions of
from the Court of
Community law.

Justice, which is the only institution competent

to interpret

In the light of the documents in the Commission’s possession, Arsial appears to have taken the right
decision with a view to sound financial management when it reduced the amount on which aid was to be
granted by including the building to be decommissioned in the assessment.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997.
(2) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994.

(2002/C 172 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3646/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Budget line B7-6000

On 18 January 2000 the Commission adopted a discussion paper entitled ‘The Commission and non-
governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership’. The document outlined various ways of
providing a Commission-wide framework for cooperation more coherent than that previously organised
on a sector-by-sector basis.

C 172 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

However, the working document ‘Draft guidelines for implementation of NGO co-financed projects carried
out in developing countries under budget line B7-6000 in 2002’ seeks to limit still further NGO autonomy
and their scope for initiative in submitting co-funding projects.

Given that the funds allocated to budget line B7-6000, which is specifically for NGOs, represent barely 3 %
of the total aid earmarked for cooperation with third countries:

B Will the Commission explain why it is seeking to restrict NGO autonomy still further, given their

already limited sphere of action?

B Does the Commission want to continue curbing the scope for NGOs to take initiatives in submitting

co-funding projects under budget line B7-6000?

Could these attempts to curb and restrict initiatives by NGOs not be seen as contrary to the provisions on
encouraging participation by civil society contained in the Cotonou Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

The Commission has indeed undertaken to explore ways of improving the framework for cooperation with
non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Development is one of the areas in which cooperation between
the Commission and the NGOs is particularly well established and forms the subject of regular, in-depth
discussions.

The guidelines for implementing projects cofinanced with the NGOs and carried out in the developing
countries under budget heading B7-6000 for 2002 and 2003 were recently adopted by the Commission
after it had consulted the Member States. The guidelines are based on respect for the NGOs’ right of
initiative and recognition of their specific role among the disadvantaged and marginalised sectors of the
population in the developing countries.

The Commission does not therefore share the point of view that the Commission is restricting NGO
autonomy and their scope for initiative. It is worth pointing out that the Commission’s support for the
NGOs is not confined to budget heading B7-6000, but is provided through a number of other financial
instruments, such as the budget headings for human rights, humanitarian aid, rehabilitation etc.:
consequently, cooperation involving the NGOs greatly exceeds the percentage mentioned by the
Honourable Member.

In the case of cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), the new guidelines for the
budget heading not only tie in fully with the Cotonou Agreement, but are also particularly tailored to
supporting the strengthening of civil society in the partner countries, one of the key points of the
Agreement.

(2002/C 172 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3647/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Boosting research into laparoscopic surgery in the European Union

It has become apparent within the medical sphere in recent years that laparoscopic surgery and minimally
invasive surgery are especially important, both for diagnosis and treatment; they have great benefits for
patients and reduced treatment costs. Considerable but mainly uncoordinated work is being done in these
fields in various EU countries.

Is the Commission planning to include within the Research Programme initiatives to create a European
network for laparoscopic medicine, and to encourage cooperation and coordination between specialists,
scientific training, the dissemination of know-how and the use of telemedicine?