WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/02 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Level playing field for small EU projects.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Structural Funds, financing method, local employment initiative, local government, region-EU relationship, regional aid

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/149

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to ongoing infringement proceedings concerning a scrap yard which
1.
operated as a waste site for a number of years without planning permission or a waste management
licence. Subsequently, the site was given deemed planning permission on the basis that it had been
operating for over 10 years. The circumstances disclosed by the complainant raised more general issues
concerning the United Kingdom process of automatically granting so called Lawful Development
Certificates (‘LDCs’) for such developments.

A Letter of Formal Notice was sent to the United Kingdom, outlining the Commission’s concern that this
process may circumvent, firstly, Articles 4,9 and 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1),
on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2), which require Member
States to ensure that waste disposal and recovery operations are carried out with a valid permit, to meet
the objectives set out in Article 4 thereof. Although, in England and Wales, the Environment Agency is the
main waste permitting authority, local planning authorities also carry out part of the Waste Directive’s
obligations to ensure that a waste development does not cause nuisance/harm to local amenity. These
issues may not properly be considered where LDCs have been granted. Secondly, LDCs may also
circumvent Articles 2(1) and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive
97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), by effectively giving development consent
to projects without an
environmental impact assessment or without considering the need for one.

The United Kingdom has recently responded to the Letter of Formal Notice and this response is now being
assessed by the Commission. Any further course of action will depend on the on the outcome of that
assessment.

Until the present infringement proceedings have been resolved,

2.
it is too early to predict what
measures would be appropriate as a result of those proceedings. However, it should be noted that there are
currently no specific Community provisions in force concerning environmental liability.

3. and 4.
The final question concerns one of a number of matters recently drawn to the Commission’s
attention, which are currently being assessed in the context of a another complaint file. However, since
that complaint raises similar issues to those already pending before the Court of Justice in Case C-99/00,
another preliminary ruling case under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, the complainant has been advised that
the Commission proposes to await the outcome of that case before completing its’ assessment of the
complaint.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Level playing field for small EU projects

In sparsely populated areas,
resources. However, they play a central role in implementing EU-funded projects.

local authorities, businesses, and organisations are small and have few

C 301 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

One problem for these players is that Structural Fund projects are expected to be large. Because payments
are made after the event, even project launches pose difficulties in themselves,

Small-scale projects are a matter of some significance for the areas concerned and those who operate in
them.

A more important factor than the size of projects is their continuity because this allows the effects to
extend over the longer term and produces more permanent results. It also ensures that project sponsors do
not have to waste their scarce physical and mental resources by devising artificial cooperation schemes.

How will the Commission ensure in the next Structural Fund programming period that small but locally
significant projects to be implemented by sponsors in given areas are placed on an equal footing with
regional-level projects of wide territorial scope?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (1) provides for regional and local authorities, the economic and social partners and
any other relevant body to share in the preparation, financing, monitoring and evaluation of assistance
within the
the
Honourable Member thus have the possibility of submitting projects, whether small or large in scale, and
of being regularly updated on the programming for their region.

and institutions mentioned by

Funds. The organisations

framework of

the

Moreover Article 2 (2) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of 12 July 1999 on the
European Social Fund (2) provides for support for local initiatives concerning employment and Article 4 (2)
provides
the Commission encourages expansion of
employment at local level, in which local players have an essential role.

to local partnerships. Thus

small grants

for

Turning to the next programming period, the Commission launched the debate on future cohesion policy
on adopting the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (3) and the First Progress Report (4). Both
documents are the subject of thematic and general seminars in which all the regional policy partners can
make known their needs and wishes for the policy’s future. The Commission will sum up the debate and
present its proposals when it publishes the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion at the end of
2003.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
(3) COM(2001) 24 final.
(4) COM(2002) 46 final.

(2002/C 301 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1451/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Decline in Eleonora’s Falcon population in Crete

(23 May 2002)

The Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature has informed me of an alarming decline in the number of
Eleonora’s Falcons (included in Annex I of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds) in
Crete since 1997. The population has fallen by half. This decline is apparently due to poisoning by the
‘methomyl’ pesticide, a carbamate marketed under the name ‘Lannate’ (DuPont) and used illegally by the
island’s inhabitants. During the hot summer months, strong concentrations of this pesticide are left outside
in basins of water in order to eliminate certain animals considered undesirable, e.g. cats, martens, rats,
dogs, etc. Other, non-targeted animals, such as vultures and falcons, obviously fall prey to this deadly
preparation.