WRITTEN QUESTION P-0554/02 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Aid to developing countries: SHARE India.
Date: 2002-02-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, India, development aid, food aid, microfinance, poverty, rural development

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/9

adverse consequences of its actions? Will the Commission guarantee the safety of the population of the
300 Greek-speaking villages of the Pontos, who are justifiably apprehensive given that the Brigadier-
General of Kerasous, Baki Onurlubas, also talks of ‘secret Greek plans for the secession of the Pontos’ and
‘training of guerrillas from the Black Sea in Greece’?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the case mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning the book of
Mr Asan. According to the information available to the Commission, Mr Asan has been prosecuted by an
Istanbul State Security Court on charges of separatist propaganda. In light of the Copenhagen political
criteria and more specifically freedom of expression, this case is a matter of serious concern.

The Commission has raised the issue of freedom of expression with Turkey on various occasions such as
the Community-Turkey Association Council and Association Committee meetings as well as during
high-level meetings including the visit of the Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement to
Turkey held on 14/15 February 2002. The Commission’s assessment of freedom of expression in Turkey is
given in the regular reports on Turkey’s progress towards accession. Restrictions in relation to the exercise
of this freedom continue, including the seizure of books and other publications.

Although the Commission understands the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding the safety of the
population in question, it is not in a position to provide the requested guarantees. These can only be
provided by the Turkish authorities themselves.

(2003/C 52 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0554/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Aid to developing countries: SHARE India

(20 February 2002)

Does the Commission intend to continue concentrating on food security and rural development in
programmes of assistance to developing countries? Does it agree that microfinance programmes which
is the
help the very poor should be part of European Union development plans? In this context
Commission aware, for example, that SHARE India is a particularly striking example of an effective agency
for poverty reduction?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

Rural Development and Food Security are important areas of intervention for Commission assistance to
developing countries. Co-operation with India in the early days focused largely on these two sectors. Over
the last decade, however, support to the social sectors health and education has become the priority area
for Community development co-operation with India. The Commission agrees that micro-finance
programmes and the development of financial services in general can equally contribute to an important
extent to poverty reduction.

The Commission, in it’s Communication ‘The Development policy of the Community’ (1) gives a priority to
local development and particularly attention to micro-enterprises within private sector development. In
order to set up favourable conditions for micro-enterprises to develop, the Communication focuses on two
particular aspects of support: the development of business services and a sustainable financial system.

Micro-finance activities are therefore incorporated in many of the Community projects in India, as well as
in the other regions of the world, like Africa and Latin America. For more information on the principles

C 52 E/10

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

governing Community assistance to micro-finance operations, it is suggested to refer to the Community
publication ‘Micro-finance (cid:1) Methodological considerations’ (2). As far as food security is concerned, India
is not considered as a priority under the Food Security Budget line, since the country has not experienced
acute food shortages for many years and is even a surplus producer. In India, therefore, this budget line
provides only sporadic funding and mostly via the association ‘EuronAid’ to very few local non-govern-
mental organisations (NGOs). Moreover, considering that India has not agreed a food security strategy with
the Commission, and to concentrate our efforts in other regions, the Budget line will discontinue the
financing of project in India.

The Commission never financed or co-financed projects with ‘SHARE’ and therefore cannot comment on
the efficiency of this organisation.

(1) COM(2000) 212 final.
(2)
ISDN 92-828-8998-1.

(2003/C 52 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0581/02

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Postal services in rural areas

Is the Council aware of the concern in rural communities over the need to maintain local offices for postal
services, given that these often also function as local stores for general merchandise and thus form a focus
for remote communities?

In that light, will the Council look favourably on the European Parliament’s approach to liberalisation of
postal services, maintaining the proposed 150g limit until such time as an in-depth review is undertaken
on the feasibility for further liberalisation? Furthermore, will the Council reject any moves towards the
introduction of a limit of 50g in 2006, as proposed by the Commission in October 2001, without a
proper understanding of the likely effect that such as a move would have on universal service and
universal tariff provision?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Regarding the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 97/67/EC
with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, the European Parliament
adopted a number of second-reading amendments to the Council’s common position at its plenary session
from 11 to 14 March 2002.

These amendments include the addition of an obligation on the Commission to provide information on a
two-yearly basis about developments in the sector, with particular reference to the economic, social,
employment and technological aspects, as well as about the quality of services.

At its meeting on 7 May 2002, after approving the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at
second reading, the Council adopted the Directive amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further
opening to competition of Community postal services. The Directive seeks to liberalise a further instalment
of the postal market (20 % according to some estimates) by 1 January 2006, while maintaining existing
safeguards on universal service provision. In this connection, the new recital 6 inserted at the European
Parliament’s request takes explicit account of the considerable social and economic importance of rural
postal networks which can provide an essential infrastructure network affording universal access to new
telecommunications technologies. Further measures may be adopted on the basis of a proposal to be
submitted by the Commission by 31 December 2006.