WRITTEN QUESTION P-1840/02 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Social and economic cohesion policy and the outermost regions in the post-2006 period.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Madeira, development aid, economic and social cohesion, enlargement of the Union, less-favoured region, peripheral region, regional aid

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/145

would entail the risk that producers would alter their normal cropping plans in order to make use of this
possibility. Were this so, then the effectiveness of the set aside regime would be weakened. Moreover it is
important that set-aside areas may not be put to any agricultural use, which is incompatible with growing
an arable crop.

However, a non-lucrative use for occasional access in a recreational manner can be admitted.

(1) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1840/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Social and economic cohesion policy and the outermost regions in the post-2006 period

Madeira has received support from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the EIB and other existing
financial instruments, and this has enabled the island’s serious social and economic underdevelopment (by
comparison with most other European regions) to be gradually remedied. However, it will still take some
time for the island to be brought up to the average level of Community development, for which reason
Community aid continues to be essential.

Consequently, Madeira and the other outermost regions take an apprehensive view of the post-2006 social
and economic cohesion policy reform as described in the document entitled ‘Initial contribution from the
outermost regions to the future of social and economic cohesion policy’. The need to support the applicant
countries’ most disadvantaged regions, combined with the plan to maintain financial resources at their
current level, suggests that there will be inadequate resources to meet the needs of all the underdeveloped
regions.

Although the Commission (in its most recent report on cohesion policy) seems willing to take the specific,
legally enshrined status of the outermost regions into consideration in its policy review, the truth of the
matter is that those regions would appear to have been penalised right from the outset. If, in an important
area such as the Objective 1 eligibility criterion, the Commission carries through its stated intention
(namely, of retaining ‘per capita GDP lower than 75 % of the Community average’ as the criterion), the
current Objective 1 regions (which include the outermost regions) will quite artificially be made to appear
more wealthy by virtue of the accession to the European Union of a group of countries whose average
income is way below that of the 15 existing Member States. That will reduce the Community average and
may mean that, on account of a purely statistical ‘enrichment’, many of the regions in question will cease
to qualify for Objective 1 status.

In the case of Madeira and the other outermost regions, cutting investment in (in particular) basic
infrastructure (for which there is still a need) and in human resources would mean suddenly halting the
current social and economic development process, the basic purpose of which is to bring about sustainable
development and much yearned-for economic convergence with the rest of the Union.

in spite of

Consequently,
the ‘per capita GDP’ criterion as the most
appropriate indicator for the distribution of funding, should other ‘prosperity criteria’ not be used during
the coming planning period as a way of safeguarding the unique, specific situation of the outermost
regions and even of other regions which may also be affected by the statistical effects of enlargement?

the Commission’s defence of

The outermost regions will continue to need Community aid in the future, at least under the existing
arrangement (inclusion under Objective 1), which means that all the funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF Guidance
Section and FIFP) will be used to promote their development, in conjunction with, in particular, support
from the Cohesion Fund and other financial instruments. How does the Commission intend to safeguard
the specific, unique situation of the outermost regions within the financial framework during the post-
2006 period?

C 28 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Madeira (cid:1) along with the other outermost regions (cid:1) is covered by one of the six regional priorities
identified for areas with severe geographical or natural handicaps in the second Report on Economic and
Social Cohesion adopted on 30 January 2001 (1). Following the report’s adoption, the Commission began
wide-ranging discussions with regional and local bodies and associations on the future of cohesion policy
and structural policy (cid:1) culminating in the Cohesion Forum on 27 and 28 May 2002. The discussions will
continue and proposals will be made when the Commission adopts the third Cohesion Report at the end
of 2003.

Discussion is continuing on eligibility for Objective 1 and no decision has been taken at this stage. The
first Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (2) reiterated the four possible options for regions
whose development is lagging behind, which include maintaining the current
threshold of 75 % of
Community gross domestic product (GDP).

It should be emphasised that the convergence of the outermost regions’ economies vis-à-vis the Union has
demonstrated the effectiveness of structural policy since 1989. Madeira has attained particularly convincing
results: in 1999 its per capita GDP reached 72 % of the Community average.

In order to provide more material for the discussions, the Commission has launched a study to examine in
greater detail the outermost regions’ characteristics, situation, needs and potential, and the nature and
impact of the Community and national policies implemented there. The study’s findings will be presented
to the regions concerned, together with specific development proposals. In this connection, the first
Progress Report points out that account will have to be taken of the specific needs of the outermost
regions identified in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the Commission acknowledged the regions’
contribution in February 2002.

Lastly, with regard to using new prosperity criteria for the distribution of funding, it should be noted that
no specific alternative proposal has so far been presented for determining the eligibility of regions whose
development is lagging behind.

(1) COM(2001) 24 final.
(2) COM(2002) 46 final.

(2003/C 28 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: EU legislation on diagnostic tests for veterinary medicines

Directive 1998/79/EC (1) concerns, inter alia, authorisation of in-vitro diagnostic tests for human use.

Is it correct

1.
in the European Union, no harmonised procedure for the authorisation of
diagnostic tests for animal diseases exists, or is authorisation of such tests covered under the rules for
veterinary products laid down in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/82/EC (2)?

that,

With the new IOE rules on Foot-and-Mouth Disease adopted in May 2002, EU legislation on FMD may be
changed to include use of what are known as marker vaccines, with tests to distinguish between sick and
healthy (vaccinated) animals for combating the disease. Furthermore,
for other animal diseases with
mandatory declaration (e.g. Classical Swine Fever), similar combat strategies could be developed.

2. Will the Commission propose the use of marker vaccines in future strategies to combat FMD?

3. Will the Commission propose EU legislation for centralised authorisation of diagnostic tests for
animal diseases on the IOE A and B lists?