WRITTEN QUESTION P-1700/02 by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission. Implementation in Greece of the Community scheme for production aid for cotton in the 2001-2002 marketing year in accordance with Regulation 1051/2001.
Date: 2002-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, aid to agriculture, cotton, fraud, operation of the Institutions, regulation of agricultural production

C 301 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Does the Commission not consider that the Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerdà-La Tour de Carol-Toulouse line
meets all the eligibility criteria laid down in the White Paper?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of including more than one rail crossing through the
Pyrenees amongst the major projects?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The existing Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerda-La tour de Carol-Toulouse railway line does not appear on the
maps of the trans-European network in Annex I to Decision 1962/96/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network (1). This single-track mountain line which runs along ridges at high altitude does not
appear to be suitable for development as a major rail link.

On the other hand, in order to facilitate rail traffic across the Pyrenees, the Commission considers it a
priority to continue with the specific TGV South project endorsed by the Essen European Council in 1994
and including the Madrid-Barcelona-Montpellier and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax lines. It also believes that given
the substantial growth in road traffic between the Iberian peninsula and the rest of Europe, a new high-
capacity rail route across the Pyrenees will eventually need to be developed, although the route it will take
is not yet known.

The Commission proposal of 2 October 2001 (2), amending Decision 1692/96/EC, includes in the list of
specific projects set out in Annex III a high-capacity rail link across the Pyrenees. Parliament approved the
new Annex III list in the opinion it adopted on 30 May 2002 (second reading).

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1700/02

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Implementation in Greece of

the Community scheme for production aid for cotton in the

2001-2002 marketing year in accordance with Regulation 1051/2001

Some cotton producers have ignored or infringed Community regulations on cotton production, thereby
compromising and jeopardising producers who comply with the regulations.

Furthermore, the reform of the Community regulatory framework governing the cotton aid scheme was
completed much later than the production period and, in any case, after the fields had been prepared and
the cotton seed sown.

The Commission’s proposal for a regulation also differed in many substantive respects from the text finally
adopted by the Council (cid:1) Regulation (EC) 1051/2001 (1) (cid:1) causing confusion and problems for
producers.

In view of the above, what measures will the Commission take to protect law-abiding producers from the
damage they may suffer as a result of the conduct of producers who do not comply with the rules or try
to commit fraud?

How will it ensure that the legitimate expectations of producers are not cruelly frustrated by the late
publication of the reformed regulatory framework for the cotton aid scheme?

Will
the Commission take measures either of a corrective nature (changes to those points in the
regulations which are unclear) or of a transitional nature (adoption of transitional arrangements for the
2001 harvest where the late publication of the regulations caused problems for producers)?

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/213

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

Under Community rules it is for Member States to decide what penalties to impose on growers who
infringe regulatory provisions and to take all necessary action for their application.

The proposal for changes in the cotton aid scheme was published on 13 December 1999 (1). Its provisions,
notably the higher percentage reduction in the guide price if the guaranteed national quantity is exceeded
and the possibility afforded to Member States of restricting the areas eligible for aid in line with
environmental criteria, were therefore known many months before the normal sowing date for the 2001/
2002 marketing year. Growers were therefore aware, although the exact terms of the new provisions
adopted by the Council were known only in May 2001, that they had to expect changes in the aid scheme.

The Commission considers that the Community rules on cotton are sufficiently clear. It may however
propose changes or make changes itself if events in the life of the aid scheme so dictate.

(1) COM(1999) 492 final.

(2002/C 301 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: The impact of San Sebastián airport’s expansion plans on Plaiaundi Ecological Park

Plaiaundi Ecological Park in Txingudi bay, Irún, the second biggest wetland in the Basque country, was
submitted by the Basque authorities for inclusion as one of the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sites of
Community Importance (SCIs) within the Natura 2000 network. The designation was based on the wealth
of different species it plays host to: the park was classified as a migration site for many species of bird
listed in Directive 79/409/EEC (1), and it is also the home of unique species such as, amongst others, the
natterjack toad (bufo calamita) listed as being in need of ‘strict protection’ in Annex IV of the Habitats
Directive.

This natural environment is protected by both national and regional legislation, and has also received aid
from the Life-Nature fund, which financed 40 % of the park’s restoration projects. The environmental
achievements of the programme were positively assessed by the European Commission.

However, Plaiaundi Park, and Txingudi bay in general, are at present threatened by the possible negative
impact of the AENA airport management agency’s project to expand nearby San Sebastían airport, where
the agency is wishing to increase air traffic and open the airport up to large aircraft.

Bearing in mind that within the next two years a high-speed train is to run between Irún and Madrid,
which will amply cater for the region’s transport needs, can the Commission provide information on the
situation regarding Txingudi bay and Plaiaundi Park’s designation as an SPA and SCI?

Does the Commission believe that Article 6 (environmental impact analysis) of the overall plan for the
airport has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Directive 97/11/EC (2) on the evaluation of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

What concrete measures is the Commission intending to take to ensure that Plaiaundi Park is given
definitive designation as a protected area?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.