WRITTEN QUESTION P-3125/03 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Structural aid for Valencia.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, EU financing arrangements, Structural Funds, eligible region

C 65 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Nonetheless, decision-making for paraquat was difficult because of its recognised toxicity. Therefore, the
draft considered by the Member States in the Committee includes restrictive provisions as well as a
mandatory monitoring and reporting programme and a proposed review of the efficacy of the risk
mitigation measures.

The discussions also addressed the frequent use of paraquat in suicide attempts and in accidents in
developing countries. However, the draft inclusion Directive would only be applicable in the Community.
It contains technical specifications to minimise the possibility of accidental or even deliberate ingestion.
To address these concerns the notifier has undertaken to use the Community’s specifications for its global
sales and to organise a stewardship programme worldwide. This programme will involve training in safe
use, a monitoring programme of possible accidents and the development of formulations which are safer
for the user.

The Commission is of the opinion that the risks connected with the use of paraquat can be managed in
such way that its use is acceptable. Moreover, it is also to be expected that the risks connected with the use
of plant protection products containing paraquat will be reduced on a world-wide scale.

It is also important to stress that inclusion in Annex I is not an encouragement to use paraquat and that
the inclusion would not relax existing restrictions in the Community. It simply means that Member States
may authorise the use of products containing paraquat.
In fact, compared to the present situation,
inclusion will most likely increase the protection of workers and the environment because of the extra
restrictions (above and beyond those already in place) that will be obligatory on those Member States that
decide to continue authorising products containing paraquat.

Moreover, after five years the Commission shall submit to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
Animal Health a report on the application of
the
requirements for Annex I inclusion continue to be satisfied and may propose any amendment to it,
including if necessary the withdrawal of paraquat from Annex I.

the Directive on paraquat

indicating whether

(1) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants on specific questions from the Commission regarding the evaluation
of paraquat in the context of Council Directive 91/414/EEC; SCP/PARAQ/002 adopted on 20 December 2001.

(2004/C 65 E/282)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3125/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Structural aid for Valencia

The Commission’s reply to my question E-2398/03 (1) on structural aid for Valencia and the diversion of
water from the Ebro, stated that on 26 March 1999 the Commission only had statistical data for GDP in
the Valencian Autonomous Community for 1994, 1995 and 1996. When Objective 1 regions were
selected, calculations on the basis of the data for those three years put Valencia below the 75 % threshold.
However, the Commission acknowledges that the data were subsequently revised, and Valencia moved
above the 75 % for the same three years. The issue is therefore more serious than what the Court of
Auditors describes in its Special Report No 7/2003. The Court says that if the most recent statistics (1996,
1997 and 1998) had been used, the Valencian Autonomous Community would not have been entitled to
Objective 1 subsidies from the Structural Funds for 2000-2006, since the GDP was above 75 % of the
Community average, while the Commission is now stating that a revision of those same years 1994, 1995
and 1996, showed Valencia already above the 75 %.

How can such a mistake have been made in calculating GDP for 1994, 1995 and 1996? Why, on
26 March 1999, were no data more recent than 1996 available?

Can the Commission verify whether the data were manipulated so as to place Valencia below the 75 %
limit on 26 March 1999?

(1) OJ C 58 E,6.3.2004, p. 164.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/269

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Following reform of the Structural Funds in 1988 the list of regions lagging behind in development
qualifying for Objective 1 was twice adopted by the Council acting on a Commission proposal, on the first
occasion for the 1989-1993 and on the second for the 1994-1999 programming period.

It was for the 2000-2006 programming period that the Commission was for the first time charged, by the
Berlin European Council, with determining the list of Objective 1 regions.

The rules (1) on determination of these regions are very precise:

(cid:1) strict application of a threshold of 75 % of the Community average per capita gross domestic product

(GDP) measured in purchasing power parities;

(cid:1) use of Community data only;

(cid:1) a cut-off date of 26 March 1999 for the figures to be used.

It was by applying these rules that in July 1999 the Commission, immediately after adoption of the new
Structural Fund Regulations, determined the list of Objective 1 regions (2). The GDP per capita figures used
were those available on 26 March 1999, which covered the years 1994 to 1996. Eurostat’s practice in
agreement with the national statistical institutes is to calculate preliminary data for the year T at the end of
month T+12 and final data at the end of month T+24. Thus in March 1999 the latest figures available
were for 1996. These time lags are included in the rules in force for compilation of the national accounts.

As are the very great majority of statistics, the sets of statistics in question are periodically revised. This is
standard procedure and not a consequence of error, Valencia not excepted.

There are three reasons for such changes:

(cid:1) methodological improvements yielded by the switch from ESA 79 to ESA 95. All the data used by the
Commission for the purposes of its decisions was compiled by Eurostat using a set of Community
methods named System of Economic Accounts 79 (ESA 79). This set of methods was subsequently
upgraded by a Council Regulation instituting ESA 95 incorporating a number of improved methods.
Under Article 7 of that Regulation ESA 95 applies for the data to be transmitted from April 1999
onwards.

(cid:1) updatings of the indicators underlying GDP estimates; these include census findings;

(cid:1) changes in the economic situation in the regions and Member States.

There is no legal basis for reexamining any region’s Objective 1 eligibility. To provide stability for planning
structural assistance Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 maintains the Objective 1 region list
unchanged until 31 December 2006. Since the Regulation makes no provision for reexamining the list
during the 2000-2006 programming period the Commission is unable to envisage any rescheduling of
Comunidad Valenciana or any other region lagging behind in development covered by Objective 1.

(1) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the

Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Commission Decision of 1 July 1999 drawing up the list of regions covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds

for the period 2002-2006.