WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Structural funds.
Date: 2002-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Structural Funds, decentralisation, financial control, management audit, structural expenditure

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/185

(cid:1) require vaccinations against the Mediterranean animal diseases (cid:1) leishmaniasis, ehrlichiosis, babesiosis,
dirofilariasis, microfilaria or borreliosis (cid:1) before any dogs may be brought from southern to central
Europe?

(cid:1) require dogs to be castrated, vaccinated and wormed before a possible transport?

(cid:1) oblige carriers to ascertain where the dog will be accommodated at its destination (dogs’ home or

family)?

Is the Commission aware of the problem of leishmaniasis?

Does it plan to establish specific import criteria in the immediate future which restrict, or even prohibit,
the import of sick dogs from the Mediterranean region to central Europe on health grounds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission is aware that Leishmaniosis is endemic in the coastal regions of the Member States of the
Mediterranean basin. This is the result of a combination of local ecological parameters which suit the
vector populations (phlebotomus sandflies) and enable the disease to persist.

The disease is thus basically dependent on a favourable ecosystem and cannot very easily take hold and
persist outside regions where the conditions are right
therefore, despite
considerable movement between the Mediterranean and the north of the country, cases of Leishmaniosis
contracted outside the area where it is endemic (lower Rhône valley and coastal regions) are still sporadic.
As far as the Commission knows, the disease has not taken hold in other regions removed from its present
front, as a result of movements of infected animals.

for its cycle.

In France,

Any current expansion of the endemic area has probably been brought about by general climate warming,
which enables the vectors involved in the cycle to cover a larger area.

The risk of Leishmaniosis encroaching on new areas as a result of movements of living animals is,
therefore, still very slight.

Introducing veterinary measures to reduce this risk further would, in the view of the Commission, be out
of proportion. Without a vaccine, the only possible strategy would be to prohibit movements from the
endemic area or conduct individual serological checks followed by quarantine. This would not stand up to
a cost-benefit analysis of the problem.

(2002/C 309 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Structural funds

The rules for managing structural funds in Member States can be complex and cumbersome. At what point
will we see the same changes that have been implemented in the Commission being transferred to Member
States in relation to structural funds? Will the system of structures of responsibility that are now in place at
the top (i.e. the Commission) be used to reform the way funding is implemented and monitored on the
ground (i.e. at Member State level)?

C 309 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2002)

Under the new generation of regulations governing the operation of the Structural Funds adopted in 1999
provision is made for a number of responsibilities to be transferred to the national administrations. In line
with the principle of subsidiarity, the implementation of assistance is a matter for individual Member States
at the appropriate regional level depending on their specific circumstances.

Taking on these new tasks has meant that each Member State has had to make adjustments in the light of
its experience and political and administrative structure. The Commission does not impose a standard form
of decentralisation within the Member States. It confines itself to ensuring that the arrangements contained
in Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds (1) and the Commission implementing Regulations
(EC) Nos 438/2001 (2) and
448/2001 (3) on the management and control systems and financial corrections are given full effect.

In its communication of 5 July 2001 (4) on the results of the programming of the Structural Funds for
2000-2006 (Objective 1), the Commission invites the Member States to step up their efforts to ensure that
more efficient use is made of the Structural Funds, in line with the new implementing regulations, in
particular as regards the computerised management systems in order also to help avoid delays in interim
payments. The Commission is planning to undertake a comparative analysis of financial management and
control systems which should help to identify best practice and to promote new solutions to problems
arising in this field

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted
under the Structural Funds, OJ L 63, 3.3.2001.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance
granted under the Structural Funds, OJ L 64, 6.3.2001.

(4) COM(2001) 378 final.

(2002/C 309 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Development plan for Campo de Gibraltar

Is the Commission aware of the level and progress of negotiations between the United Kingdom and Spain
on Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

In the event that these negotiations do not bear fruit, would the Commission still consider a plan to
develop the Campo de Gibraltar region financed through the Structural and Cohesion Funds?

Would the Commission link this economic and social development plan to the outcome of sovereignty
negotiations?

Does the Commission not consider that an ambitious development plan for the Campo de Gibraltar
region, which would resolve the serious problems facing it, would finally succeed in allaying the
‘suspicions’ on both sides of the dividing line?