WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. EU-funded projects in Israel.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU relations, Israel, cooperation policy, establishment of peace, terms for aid

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/105

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2002)

At the end of April 2002 the Commission was informed of the death of an infant that had been linked to
the consumption of an infant formula from which Enterobacter sakazakii was isolated. According to the
information provided by the manufacturer,
the product concerned was in conformity with existing
national standards in the Member State where it was manufactured and with international standards. The
Commission alerted all Member States through the Rapid Alert System (1). Since issuing the warning
through the Rapid Alert System, the Commission has not been made aware of any cases of meningitis in
infants caused by Enterobacter sakazakii.

Member States also have systems for reporting illnesses and they are obliged to communicate and to
exchange data through the Community Network for Communicable Diseases established under Decision
No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the
epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community (2).

The Commission would agree that when it is possible and not contraindicated, breast-feeding is the best
way of feeding young infants and mothers should be encouraged to do so. Commission Directive 91/321/
EEC of 14 May 1991 on infant formulae and follow-on-formulae (3) includes provisions to ensure that
information on infant feeding intended for pregnant women and mothers indicates the benefits and
superiority of breast-feeding. A statement concerning the superiority of breast-feeding must be included on
the label of infant formula itself. This year the Commission is funding a project that aims to evaluate and
develop standards for breast-feeding promotion activities in the Union with a view to develop strategies
and plans for breast-feeding promotion at national and local levels.

(1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety, OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
(3) OJ L 175, 4.7.1991.

(2003/C 28 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: EU-funded projects in Israel

The text below appeared in a letter to the UK’s Guardian newspaper on 6 April 2002. Does the
Commission agree with the points raised?

‘Many national and European cultural and research institutions, including especially those funded from the
EU and the European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding
grants and contracts. Would it not therefore be timely that at both national and European level a
moratorium was called upon any further such support unless and until Israel abides by UN resolutions and
opens serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians along the lines proposed in many peace plans,
including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League?’

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that Israel
is not among the recipients of
Community bilateral aid. Its high per capita GDP makes it ineligible for Community-financed bilateral
cooperation programmes (the MEDA Programme). However, a few Israeli civil society groups are involved
in various regional programmes along with other partners from the region.

C 28 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Israel participates as an associate partner in the Fifth Framework Programme for scientific and technical
cooperation, but it makes a contribution to the programme budget proportional to its GDP.

As regards the possibility of a moratorium, while the Commission is extremely concerned at the current
situation on the ground, particularly the human rights violations, it considers it important to continue
relations with Israel. At this stage, suspending ties would hardly increase the Israeli authorities’ awareness
of the EU’s concern, and it seems preferable to go on using the machinery available under the Association
Agreement to make its views known to them at all levels.

(2003/C 28 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Flexibility of the EU support system

Before Finland joined the EU, Finnish local authorities received national regional policy support to finance
investments in basic services such as school repairs and sewage treatment plants. The effect of EU
membership has been that national funding is increasingly being accounted for by contributions to the
Objective 1 areas defined for the purposes of EU regional policy, with the result that operations are taking
the form of development projects and investment in basic services is no longer possible.

It is perfectly understandable that the modus operandi of EU regional policy should be project based
because the measures are by nature additional. However, Finland has implemented its policy in the same
way by earmarking national funding for projects. Local authorities have no money of their own to invest
in municipal engineering or social and health services. In the small local administrative areas local taxes
have already been raised to the maximum.

Could not the EU support system be made more flexible so that aid could likewise be granted for basic
services? Should not a local authority be allowed to apply for a grant for, say, a project to renovate a
sewage treatment plant and channel more of its own resources into, for example, the recruitment of
doctors?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Community aid can be given for basic infrastructure work such as renovation of sewage treatment plants
provided the investment is in a region enjoying Structural Fund eligibility and is compatible with the rules
in force. The basic Structural Fund Regulations define a specific field of application for each Fund. The
European Regional Development Fund can part-finance investment in infrastructure that helps increase
economic potential or assists in development, structural adjustment or the creation or maintenance of
sustainable jobs but there is no provision for financing e.g. schools.

Further, the national authorities can restrict the programmes to be part-financed from the Funds to a set
number of strategically chosen fields. Thus the four Objective 1 and 2 programmes for mainland Finland
the budget
offer co-financing possibilities for investments in infrastructure and basic services but
allocations vary from programme to rogramme according to the strategic choices made by the regional
and national authorities. For example in the Eastern Finland Objective 1 programme some 14 % of the
Community funding has been allocated under priority 4 to development of structures geared to everyday
life and a good environment. Total Community funding for this programme is EUR 626,6 million. Under
western Finland Objective 2 some 26 % of the total Community funding is allocated under priority 3 for