WRITTEN QUESTION E-1618/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Structural and Cohesion Funds in Portugal (repeat question).
Date: 2003-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU regional policy, European Commissioner, Portugal, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, less-favoured region, multiannual financial framework, press release

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/145

competition, and in retaining freedom of prices, which remain dependent on supply and demand, the
system remains without influence on price formation and affects neither intra-Community trade nor the
free provision of services by users established in other Member States.

The parafiscal charges levied to finance action in the cereals sector (FASC) are not imposed on imports
from other Member States or non-Union countries and do not compromise the policy on cereal growers’
incomes implemented through the common market organisation.
form they were
approved by the Commission on 19 October 2000 as an aid system compatible with the common market
(State Aids/France No 514/2000).

In their present

(1) Regulation No 120/67/EEC of 13 June 1967 on the common organisation of the market in cereals, OJ 117,

19.6.1967.

(2004/C 33 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1618/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Structural and Cohesion Funds in Portugal (repeat question)

In Written Question P-0976/03 (1) I asked the Commission about a significant utterance by Mr Verheugen
to the effect that the Commission would propose that the level of support for Portugal in the forthcoming
financial package should remain more or less the same. It was natural to believe that his words reflected a
consensus within the Commission. Although it was supposed to provide the necessary information, the
answer failed in the end to address the key question, which I am therefore repeating.

In reality, what Mr Barnier said fell substantially short of the promise that Mr Verheugen made in Portugal.
The written reply stated merely that a decision had still to be reached in the discussions on future
Community cohesion policy after 2006 and the proposals on the financial perspective for that period
would be submitted at a later date. It was consequently not possible to indicate at the present time roughly
how much funding might be allocated to Portugal after 2006.

Can the Commission answer the following:

(cid:1) Do Mr Verheugen’s and Mr Barnier’s attitudes to this vital matter amount to the same thing?

(cid:1) Do the views expressed by Mr Verheugen (cid:1) as referred to in the above-mentioned question (cid:1) stem

from an agreement within the Commission?

(cid:1) Even though it might not wish to specify approximate amounts for the period after 2006, does not
intends to propose, as
idea at

this stage of what

it

least a general
the Commission have at
Mr Verheugen gave clearly to understand?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

As mentioned in the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-0976/03, the future shape of
Community cohesion policy after 2006 is still being discussed within the Institution.

C 33 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The interview of the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement, and in particular the
statement mentioned by the Honourable Member, was variously reported in several Portuguese newspapers
(Diário Económico, Correio da Manhã, etc.). He was in fact referring to the well-known position of the
Commission that the so-called ‘statistical effect’ of enlargement should be taken into account for the period
2007-2013, to avoid penalising certain regions of the present Member States that otherwise would not be
eligible for Objective 1 support in an enlarged Union.

In the third cohesion report at the end of 2003, the Commission will present its economic and social
proposals for future cohesion policy after 2006. The financial perspective proposals for the post-2006
period will be presented later. The Commission can already inform the Honourable Member that it will be
seeking a fair and meaningful solution for the regions that will suffer the ‘statistical effect’ due to the fall in
the Community’s average per-capita gross domestic product (GDP).

(2004/C 33 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1620/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Extinction of artic char in Lough Conn, Ireland

A gill net survey by the Irish Central Fisheries Board in 1978 and 1984 on Lough Conn, County Mayo,
Ireland, showed a good stock of arctic char in the lake. Later surveys in 1994, 1998 and in 2001 recorded
no char and now this unique fish is deemed to be extinct in that lake. This extinction has been attributed
by scientists to the excessive enrichment of the lake. Although the nutrient dynamics are complex in the
lake, excessive algal accumulations, including blue-green algae, on the char spawning beds in autumn and
early winter in the early 1990s are believed to be the cause. (These still occur, particularly on mild winter
days with a gentle breeze.) These beds were covered by what can only be described as a thick jelly (made
up of almost pure cultures of anabaena which is known to become toxic under certain circumstances) of
silt, and it is accepted that char avoid silt and only spawn on clean gravel. The causes for extinction of
char in Ireland are varied, however experts believe that the case for Lough Conn relates directly to the
increased nutrient loading, particularly phosphorous in the lake.

Mid lake sampling (OECD classification) by statutory agencies, although useful to classify lakes, does not
necessarily reflect conditions along the lake margins,
for example accumulation of algae (measured
chlorophyll) along the margins of a lake during the critical period for arctic char. Recently the brown trout
stocks of that lake have also crashed, again this is attributed to the consequences of nutrient enrichment
(e.g. expanding cyprinid communities).

Although advances are being made to control human sewage sources, nutrient enrichment from the other
sectors continues to increase significantly.

Does the Commission agree that the continued enrichment of the lake is essentially a failure by the Irish
authorities to control and limit phosphorous inputs to Lough Conn and is therefore in breach of the
Dangerous Substances Directive?

Does the Commission agree that lakes with sensitive species like the arctic char require special measures to
protect them from the effects of nutrient enrichment, including phosphorous loading?

Should Ireland not restore the lake to conditions favourable for the native arctic char and the brown trout,
i.e., radically reduce the inflow of nutrients?