WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04 by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission. Member State contributions to the Community Budget.
Date: 2004-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, European accounting system, Member States' contribution, budget policy, multiannual financial framework, national budget, public expenditure

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/659

Is the Commission going to take the new reports into account at the June and September 2004 NAFO
meetings, so as better to defend the EU’s fishing interests?

What concrete plans does the Commission have, and what measures does it intend to take to help the fleet
affected by the NAFO decisions of 2003 on Greenland halibut?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 248.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

The Commission has studied the McGuire report and participated in a meeting arranged by the Spanish
authorities. Following a thorough examination in consultation with all Community representatives of the
NAFO Scientific Council, the Commission does not consider that the report adds any new elements and,
therefore, remains confident in the work performed by the Scientific Council of NAFO in June 2003. The
Commission is of the view that the most appropriate forum to debate this report would be the NAFO
Scientific Council meeting in June 2004.

Amendments to the FIFG Regulation (1) are currently under discussion in the Council, intended to alleviate
the burden on fishermen following the adoption of recovery plans, including socio-economic measures for
fishermen. The Commission is examining these favourably.

Alternative fishing opportunities have also been made available to the Community NAFO fleet through
quota transfers in Greenland and Faroese Waters.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2004/C 84 E/0743)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0703/04

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Member State contributions to the Community Budget

(4 March 2004)

The contributions made by each Member State to the EU budget are either less than 1 % of their national
income, or very slightly more.

Given that the Community Budget is essential for the EU to achieve balanced development and cohesion,
and to pursue the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives, why do these contributions have to go on counting
towards each Member State’s deficit?

If they did not,
is it not the case that the need to plug the national budgetary deficit by cutting
contributions to the Community Budget would cease to be a pretext for preventing an increase in revenue
for the new EU financial prospective for 2007-2013?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2004)

The EC Treaty obliges Member States to avoid excessive deficit positions (defined as general government
‘general
deficit below a reference value of 3 % of gross domestic product
government’ is defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system
of national and regional accounts (1)
in the Community (2), and the corresponding statistical data
requirements are the ones in ESA95. All the expenditures included within the ‘general government’
definition do have a bearing on the excessive deficit. Member States’ contributions to the EU budget are
part of the expenditure of ‘general government’.

(GDP)). The concept of

C 84 E/660

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

‘general government’. However,

The Commission does not support any proposals to exclude specific spending items from the calculation
of expenditures of
in order to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg
objectives, it is important to increase the quality of public expenditures by redirecting public spending
towards growth-enhancing cost-effective public spending. The Commission has regularly recommended in
the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to redirect public spending along these lines and this has indeed
always been supported by the Parliament and the Council. Redirecting public expenditure would, therefore,
enhance the contribution of both national and EU budgets to the achievement of Lisbon and Gothenburg
objectives.

(1) ESA95.
(2) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2004/C 84 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0707/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Creation of a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli

The Italian press recently reported that the town council of Tivoli (RM) has decided to set up an ‘ecological
platform’ with the relevant infrastructure on council land in the village of La Prece located in the territory
of the Monte Catillo nature reserve, the environment and landscape of which are under a number of
protection orders.

The council
land was handed over by the municipality to ASA Spa, a company owned by the local
authority and involved in waste collection. The ‘ecological platform’ is supposed to include a dump for
storage, differentiated waste collection and the disposal of inorganic waste, all located in the nature reserve.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. whether a prior environmental

impact assessment has been carried out

to ascertain whether

conditions are suitable for siting the dump in the village mentioned;

2. whether the local council’s decision to hand the land over to ASA Spa complies with the directives on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and on making
information available to the public (85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2)) and the directive on the
assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (2001/42/EC (3));

3. whether the decision to set up the ‘ecological platform’ complies with those directives?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The project for a waste disposal site in the Monte Catillo nature reserve at Tivoli, mentioned by the
Honourable Member, appears to be covered by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. It could fall into one of the classes of projects listed under Annex II
of the Directive. Article 4, paragraph 2, of Directive 85/337/EEC, modified, provides that for projects listed
in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination or setting
thresholds or criteria, whether it needs to be made subject to an environmental
impact assessment
procedure in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.